Environmental Assessment of Petro

Transcription

Environmental Assessment of
Petro-Canada’s Vertical Seismic Profiling Program
at the Terra Nova Development
Prepared by
Prepared for
November 2006
LGL Project No. SA890a
Environmental Assessment of
Petro-Canada’s Vertical Seismic Profiling Program
at the Terra Nova Development
Prepared by
LGL Limited
environmental research associates
P.O. Box 13248, Stn. A
St. John’s, NL A1B 4A5
709-754-1992 (p)
709 754-7718 (f)
Prepared for
Petro-Canada
235 Water Street
St. John’s, NL A1C 1B6
November 2006
LGL Project SA890a
Suggested format for citation:
LGL Limited. 2006. Environmental assessment of Petro-Canada’s vertical seismic profiling program at the Terra Nova
Development. LGL Rep. SA890a. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for Petro-Canada, St. John’s, NL. 92 p +
appendix.
Table of Contents
Page
Table of Contents........................................................................................................................................ ii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables ...............................................................................................................................................v
1.0
Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
1.1
Regulatory Context ..............................................................................................................1
1.2
Rationale ..............................................................................................................................2
1.3
Consultations........................................................................................................................2
1.4
The Operator ........................................................................................................................2
1.5
Contacts at Petro-Canada.....................................................................................................2
2.0
Project Description...........................................................................................................................4
2.1
Name and Location ..............................................................................................................4
2.2
Alternatives to the Project....................................................................................................4
2.3
Physical Site Conditions ......................................................................................................4
2.4
Site layout ............................................................................................................................4
2.5
Scheduling............................................................................................................................4
2.6
Description of Activities ......................................................................................................4
2.6.1 Checkshots ...............................................................................................................7
2.6.2 ZVSP (Zero-offset VSP)..........................................................................................7
2.6.3 DVSP (Deviated VSP).............................................................................................7
2.6.4 OVSP (Offset VSP) .................................................................................................7
2.6.5 Walkaway VSP ........................................................................................................8
2.6.6 VSP Method Proposed for Terra Nova....................................................................8
2.7
Mitigations ...........................................................................................................................8
3.0
Physical Environment ......................................................................................................................9
4.0
Biological Environment .................................................................................................................10
4.1
Commercial Fisheries/DFO and Industry Surveys ............................................................10
4.1.1 Data Sources ..........................................................................................................10
4.1.2 DFO RV Survey Data ............................................................................................10
4.1.3 Domestic Fisheries in 2005....................................................................................11
4.1.4 2006 Fisheries ........................................................................................................11
4.1.5 DFO Science and Industry Surveys .......................................................................11
4.2
Seabirds..............................................................................................................................12
4.2.1 Seasonal Occurrence and Abundance of Seabirds.................................................15
4.3
Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles .....................................................................................18
4.3.1 Marine Mammals ...................................................................................................18
4.3.2 Sea Turtles .............................................................................................................30
4.4
Sensitive Habitats and Times.............................................................................................32
4.5
Species at Risk ...................................................................................................................32
4.5.1 Wolffishes ..............................................................................................................34
4.5.2 Atlantic Cod ...........................................................................................................35
4.5.3 Sharks.....................................................................................................................38
4.5.4 Other Fish...............................................................................................................38
4.5.5 Ivory Gull...............................................................................................................39
Vertical Seismic Profiling Environmental Assessment
Terra Nova Development
LGL Limited
Page ii
4.5.6 Blue Whale.............................................................................................................40
4.5.7 Leatherback Sea Turtle ..........................................................................................41
5.0
Effects Assessment ........................................................................................................................44
5.1
Assessment Methodology ..................................................................................................44
5.1.1 Scoping ..................................................................................................................44
5.1.2 Valued Ecosystem Components ............................................................................44
5.1.3 Boundaries .............................................................................................................45
5.1.4 Effects Assessment Procedures..............................................................................45
5.2
Effects of the Environment on the Project.........................................................................50
5.3
Potential Effects on Fish and Commercial Fishery............................................................50
5.3.1 Fish.........................................................................................................................50
5.3.2 Commercial Fishery...............................................................................................59
5.4
Potential Effects on Seabirds .............................................................................................61
5.5
Potential Effects on Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles.....................................................61
5.5.1 Marine Mammals ...................................................................................................68
5.5.2 Sea Turtles .............................................................................................................71
5.6
Potential Effects on Species at Risk...................................................................................72
5.7
Potential Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................72
5.7.1 Cumulative Effects within the Project ...................................................................73
5.7.2 Cumulative Effects with Other Oil and Gas Activities..........................................73
6.0
Mitigations and Follow-up.............................................................................................................75
7.0
Conclusions....................................................................................................................................77
8.0
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................78
9.0
Literature Cited ..............................................................................................................................79
Appendix A: Physical Environment Report .............................................................................................92
LGL Limited
Page iii
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1. Location of the Terra Nova Development and proposed VSP survey...................................... 5
Figure 2. Terra Nova Development site layout. ....................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Marine mammal sightings made from the MV Western Neptune during Husky’s
Seismic Monitoring Program in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin during October and
November 2005....................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 4. Location of Blue Whale Sightings Relative to Petro-Canada’s Project and Study Areas. ..... 42
LGL Limited
Page iv
List of Tables
Page
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
DFO science survey schedule, Newfoundland and Labrador, 2006....................................... 12
Bird species occurring in the Project Area and predicted monthly abundances..................... 13
Numbers of pairs of seabirds nesting at seabird colonies in Eastern Newfoundland. ............ 14
Marine mammals that may or likely occur in the Project Area and their COSEWIC and
SARA status. ............................................................................................................................ 19
Population estimates of marine mammals that occur or may occur in the Study Area .......... 21
Summary of marine mammal prey that occur or may occur in the Study Area. .................... 22
SARA and COSEWIC listed species potentially occurring in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area.. 33
Potential interactions between the Project and Fish VEC. ..................................................... 57
Effects assessment on Fish VEC............................................................................................. 58
Significance of predicted residual environmental effects on the fish VEC. ........................... 59
Potential interactions between the Project and Commercial Fishery VEC............................. 60
Effects assessment on Commercial Fishery VEC................................................................... 62
Significance of predicted residual environmental effects on the commercial fishery VEC. .. 63
Potential interactions between the Project and seabird, sea turtle and marine
mammal VECs. ....................................................................................................................... 63
Effects assessment on seabird VEC........................................................................................ 64
Significance of predicted residual environmental effects on the seabird VEC. ..................... 65
Effects assessment on marine mammal and sea turtle VECs. ................................................ 70
Significance of predicted residual environmental effects on the marine mammal and sea
turtle VECs.............................................................................................................................. 71
Summary of mitigation measures for the proposed VSP Program in the Terra
Nova Development. ................................................................................................................. 75
LGL Limited
Page v
1.0 Introduction
Petro-Canada proposes to undertake vertical seismic profiling (VSP) activities at its Terra Nova
Development in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin (see Figure 1) in support of remaining delineation and
production wells at Terra Nova. This document provides a description and environmental assessment of
the proposed VSP activities that may occur for the duration of the life of the Terra Nova Development.
Vertical seismic profiling consists of an airgun array sound source, typically less powerful than those
used during routine seismic surveys, deployed at locations near (or on) the rig with receivers placed in
the well. The purpose of the technique is to tie in or ground-truth the geological data with geophysical
information.
This document updates and incorporates regulatory agency comments of an Environmental Assessment
(EA) prepared for the proposed Petro-Canada VSP Program in June 2006 (LGL 2006a). The reviewer is
referred to the EIS and associated documents for detailed information on the Terra Nova Development
and associated activities, the biophysical environment, and the effects assessment for activities other
than VSP (Petro-Canada 1996a,b, 1997, 1998). Additional relevant information is also contained in the
Terra Nova Baseline Environmental Characterization Data Report (Petro-Canada 1998).
1.1
Regulatory Context
‘Check shots,’ of which VSP surveys can be considered an extension (A. Kaderali, Husky, pers. comm.),
are now required by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB or
the ‘Board’). The following is excerpted from the Joint Guidelines Respecting Data Acquisition and
Reporting (C-NOPB and C-NSOPB 2003).
“A check shot survey is required for all exploration and delineation wells. The Board, in consultation
with the operator, may request the operator to acquire a vertical seismic profile (VSP), where it would
contribute to resolving uncertainty associated with seismic interpretation.
It is likely that geophysical surveys will be needed in some development wells to acquire additional
control for the seismic interpretation of the field. In such instances, the Board may request that an
operator conduct such survey(s) should they be necessary.”
The Board is mandated by the Atlantic Accord acts. Offshore seismic on federal lands is now subject to
screening under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). Because seismic survey
activities have the potential to affect seabirds, marine mammals, and fish and fisheries, Fisheries and
Oceans and Environment Canada are the primarily interested agencies. Relevant environmental
legislation, in addition to CEAA, includes the Fisheries Act, the Oceans Act, the Migratory Bird Act, and
the Species at Risk Act (SARA). As the VSP will be conducted from the drill rig with the assistance of a
typical standby supply vessel, there are no new issues related to the Navigable Waters Act other than
those previously considered under the Terra Nova Development EIS.
LGL Limited
Page 1
1.2
Rationale
The rationale for conducting VSP surveys is that they allow operators to tie in or ground-truth the
geological data with geophysical information. In addition, the surveys are required to meet C-NLOPB
and operator requirements.
1.3
Consultations
Consultations for Petro-Canada's VSP Program were undertaken with relevant agencies and interest
groups via email and telephone. The purpose of these consultations was to describe the proposed
program, gather any additional information relevant to the EA, and identify any issues or concerns.
None of the stakeholders contacted had any particular questions or concerns about these proposed
activities. In previous, similar VSP Programs, these groups have not raised any issues or questions
regarding these types of offshore exploration activities (S. Canning, Canning & Pitt, pers. comm.). The
agencies/persons contacted regarding Petro-Canada’s VSP program included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
1.4
DFO : Randy Power and Sigrid Kuehnemund
Environment Canada : Glenn Troke
One Ocean : Maureen Murphy
FPI : Derek Fudge
Association for Seafood Producers : E. Derek Butler
Natural History Society : Len Zedel
The Operator
Petro-Canada is one of the largest integrated oil and gas companies in Canada, with significant
international interests. Headquartered in Calgary, Alberta, Petro-Canada (the Operator) is a Canadianbased integrated energy company serving global customers, committed to conducting its offshore oil and
gas operations in an environmentally responsible manner.
The Operator is the management and operating company for the Operator’s 10 Significant Discovery
Licenses, three Production Licenses, and four Exploration Licenses, offshore Newfoundland. The Terra
Nova field, the largest of the Operator’s Significant Discovery Areas, is estimated to contain
approximately 370-470 million barrels of recoverable reserves. Petro-Canada is also a major partner in
the Hibernia and White Rose developments.
1.5
Contacts at Petro-Canada
Relevant contacts at Petro-Canada for the VSP activities and related documentation include:
LGL Limited
Page 2
Executive Contact:
William Fleming
Asset Manager, Terra Nova
Scotia Centre, 235 Water Street
St. John's, NL
A1C 1B6
Telephone: 709 778-3541
Drilling Contact:
Jason Evans
Well Design Lead
Petro-Canada East Coast Operations
Suite 201, Scotia Centre
235 Water Street
St. John's, NL
(709) 778-3684
Email: [email protected]
Environment Contact:
Urban Williams
Team Lead
Environment, Emergency Response & Security
Petro-Canada
235 Water Street
St. John’s, NL
A1C 1B6
Phone: (709) 778-3764
Email: [email protected]
LGL Limited
Page 3
2.0 Project Description
The Project Description is based upon information available at the time of writing. Currently, not all
project details are known because the specific number and locations of VSP surveys depend upon
uncertainties regarding requirements for delineation and exploration wells that will be drilled over the
life of the Terra Nova Development. Nonetheless, this Project Description is an accurate reflection of
Petro-Canada’s present level of knowledge.
2.1
Name and Location
The official name of the Project is the Terra Nova Development Vertical Seismic Profiling Program. It
is located in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin within the boundaries of the Terra Nova Development (see Figures
1 and 2) about 350 km east-southeast of St. John’s. Water depths in the Terra Nova area range from
90 m to 95 m.
2.2
Alternatives to the Project
As the VSP surveys are a regulatory requirement by the Board and a technical requirement for
operations, there is no alternative to them per se. However, there are alternatives within the Project in
the form of different types of VSP survey as described below.
2.3
Physical Site Conditions
Meteorological and oceanographic conditions are described in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of Petro-Canada
(1996a). The most recent oceanographic review of the area is contained in Oceans (2005). This report is
appended in its entirety in Appendix A.
2.4
Site layout
The site layout for the Terra Nova Development wells is shown in Figure 2. This area can be considered
to be the Project Area and includes all of Petro-Canada’s production licenses.
2.5
Scheduling
VSP surveys typically occur during the summer season (although they could occur at any time
throughout the year) and will continue on an as-needed basis for the life of the Terra Nova Development
project (15-17 years). Within a given year, there would be a maximum of two VSP surveys, with each
VSP acquisition period lasting from 8-36 hours.
2.6
Description of Activities
During the life of the Terra Nova Development, Petro-Canada intends to conduct VSP activities at its
wells at Terra Nova (see Figure 2) on an as-needed basis. In the current program with the Henry
LGL Limited
Page 4
Figure 1.
Location of the Terra Nova Development and proposed VSP survey.
LGL Limited
Page 5
515400
5154000
H-71
East Flank
Graben
515300
5153000
Far East
WIN2 (F1 ST)
PN2 (G1 ST)
5152000
F-100 1 (A4)
[PG5]
G-90 4 (F5) [WIE2]
PE3 (F2 ST)
NE G
A
PN1 (G1)
515200
G-90 5Z
WIN1 (F1)
G-90 5
F
NW
5151000
PG7 (A2)
PG6 (A1)
GIG4
(C1 ST)
C-69 3 [WIF4]
WIE8 (F3)
G-90 3 (G2) [PE4]
5150000
5149000
K-18
L-98 2
(C3)
[PG1]
PG9
(A3)
PE8 (B2 ST)
(E only)
H-99
G-90 1 (F4) [WIE4]
L-98 1Z
(C1) [PG2]
C-09
L-98 10 L-98 3 (D2)
(D1)
[GIG3]
[GIG2]
L-98 6
(D4)
[GIG1]
5147000
K-08
F-88 1 (E2)
[WIE5]
L-98 4 (B2) [PE5]
WIF1 (E3)
C-69 1
redrill PF1 (F2)
515000
K L FE
PF3
(G3 ST)
WIF2 (E2
ST)
514900
C-69 2Z
E
PE7 (C4)
WIE6
(E4)
514700
I-97
K-17
514800
SE
SW
L-98 5 (D3)
[WIG1]
L-98 8 (B3)
[PG8]
E-79
G-90 2W (G4) [HPE1]
F-88 2 (E1) [WIE7]
L-98 9 (C2) [PE1]
B C D
5148000
515100
G-90 5Y (G3) [PE6]
Legend:
Existing / Future Producer
K-07
5146000
Existing / Future Water Injector
L-98 7X
(B4) [PG4]
PF8
514600
Existing / Future Gas Injector
Existing / Future Abandoned Well
Suspended Well
5145000
689500
514500
690500
691500
692500
693500
694500
695500
696500
697500
698500
699500
700500
701500
D
Figure 2.
Terra Nova Development site layout.
LGL Limited
Page 6
Goodrich, there are six more wells to be drilled. This is the current base case scenario and may change
as wells are drilled (J. Evans, Petro-Canada, pers. comm.). The VSP is used to measure acoustic waves
between a well bore and the surface. It differs from surface seismic in that it has higher resolution and
can provide wave fields in situ. This permits calibration of surface seismic data and provides “images”
within the vicinity of the well bore that could otherwise not be defined by surface seismic data.
A VSP can be regarded as an extension of a ‘checkshot survey’. Typically, the same source and
downhole receivers are used for both types of survey. The difference is in the higher spatial sampling
and longer recording time for VSPs versus checkshots. Acquisition times are dependent on the type of
VSP and acquisition tool but they normally vary between 8-36 hours per well.
2.6.1
Checkshots
A checkshot can be defined as measurement of travel time between the surface and a given depth. This
is achieved by placement of a downhole geophone that records direct arrivals, at defined depths in a
well. A hydrophone monitors the signature and timing of the source signal. Several shots are usually
acquired at the same level (depth) and stacked in order to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. Checkshots
are usually acquired at the tops of significant formations, at the top of the sonic log, above and below the
casing shoe and at zones where the borehole is in bad condition.
Sonic logs are calibrated by reference to check shot surveys to correct the velocities obtained by the
integration of the sonic interval transit times. The calibrated sonic log may then be used for the
translation of surface seismic time into depth and for the generation of synthetic seismograms and for
other applications.
2.6.2
ZVSP (Zero-offset VSP)
This is the basic type of VSP that is normally acquired for vertical or near-vertical wells. The source is
placed at a fixed distance of between 40 m and 125 m offset from the wellhead. Wherever possible, the
source is deployed from the drill rig.
2.6.3
DVSP (Deviated VSP)
This is a variation on the ZVSP above due to deviation of the well trajectory. For this type of VSP, the
source is positioned at several (usually between one and three) fixed distances of between 40 m and the
maximum horizontal displacement of the well. Wherever possible, the source is deployed from the drill
rig. A vessel for the source may be used if the well trajectory is such, that offsets are required that
cannot be attained from the rig.
2.6.4
OVSP (Offset VSP)
In addition to a ZVSP or DVSP, a VSP may be acquired in the same well with the source positioned in
any direction at fixed distances between 500 m and 2.0 km from the wellhead. In this case, the source
would be deployed off a vessel.
LGL Limited
Page 7
2.6.5
Walkaway VSP
For a Walkaway VSP the source is deployed at uniform intervals (between 15 m and 100 m) in
particular directions from the wellhead for distances of up to 5.0 km. In the case of a Walkaway VSP
only a limited number of receiver levels would be acquired (usually between 8 to 40) and in a particular
zone only. The source would be deployed from a vessel in this case.
2.6.6
VSP Method Proposed for Terra Nova
The sound source to be used at Terra Nova will include a four sleeve-gun tuned array comprised of 2x
100 in3 and 2x 150 in3 guns for a total volume of 500 in3. The guns will be charged with nitrogen or
compressed air, suspended at a constant depth of four to seven metres, depending on sea-state and
operated at 2,000 psi pressure. The 0-to-peak source level is 8.45 Bar-m which converts to 238.5 dB re
1 µPa 0-P @ 1 m; maximum output occurs between 20 and 140 Hz (R. Dugal, Petro-Canada, pers.
comm.).
The Terra Nova VSP surveys may range from a zero-offset VSP (i.e., fixed distance from the wellhead)
with the source deployed from the rig to a walkaway VSP (uniform intervals up to 5.0 km from the rig).
At each well, the survey would be a one-time event potentially occurring as early as July 2006 (and
occurring over the life of the project) and extend for eight to 36 hours per survey.
Petro-Canada's preference is to use the Baker Atlas Multi-Level Receiver (MLR) tool as a receiver. The
MLR tool is generally deployed with five receivers at a spacing of 15 metres between tools but can also
be deployed with up to thirteen receivers if required. The MLR tool can be used in both open hole and
cased hole environments. Alternatively, a Slim-Hole Receiver (SHR) tool is available if borehole
conditions warrant its use. A normal job using the standard MLR configuration would result in the
acquisition of up to 400 levels within the well bore that the receiver tool would acquire recordings of the
airgun pulses (R. Dugal, Petro-Canada, pers. comm.).
2.7
Mitigations
Prior to the onset of VSP, the airgun array will be gradually ramped up. The smallest airgun will be
activated first and then the volume of the array will be increased gradually over a recommended 20 to
30-min period. An observer aboard the rig or vessel with the seismic source will watch for marine
mammals and sea turtles 30 min prior to ramp-up. If a marine mammal or sea turtle is sighted within
500 m of the array then ramp-up will not commence until the animal has moved beyond the 500 m zone.
The observer will watch for marine mammals and sea turtles when the airgun array is active; airguns
will be shutdown if a threatened or endangered marine mammal or turtle is sighted within or about to
enter the 500 m safety zone. More details about mitigation (and monitoring) are presented in Section 6.
LGL Limited
Page 8
3.0 Physical Environment
The physical environment of the Terra Nova Development was described in detail in Section 3 of the
Terra Nova EIS (Petro-Canada 1996a). For details about the physical setting at the Terra Nova
Development, the reader is referred to the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Section 3.1, Atmospheric Environment (climate including severe weather conditions);
Section 3.2, Oceanic Environment (bathymetry, water masses, currents, tides, fronts,
upwellings, and waves;
Section 3.3, Sea Ice and Icebergs;
Section 3.4, Geology (bedrock, sediments, hydrocarbon occurrence, and seismicity);
Section 3.5, Shoreline Environment (coastal geomorphology, hydrology, oceanography and
ice); and
Section 3.6, Chemical Environment (water quality and sediment chemistry)
A recent review of oceanographic conditions in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin was prepared by Oceans (2005;
see Appendix A). The report includes updated analyses for wind and wave conditions, water masses and
currents. The physical environment of the Grand Banks has not changed greatly since the Terra Nova
EIS was prepared.
LGL Limited
Page 9
4.0 Biological Environment
The biological environment of the Terra Nova Development and adjacent areas of the Jeanne d’Arc
Basin have been reviewed in detail the Terra Nova EIS (Petro-Canada 1996a,b, 1997), the White Rose
EA (Husky 2000), and the Husky exploratory drilling EA (Husky 2002). There appears to have been no
significant changes in the biological resources of the Study Area since the preparation of these
documents, although the nature of the fishery has changed since the Terra Nova EIS (see below). There
are no apparent unique biological features at the Terra Nova Development relative to those in the
adjacent areas of the Jeanne d’Arc Basin. The following sections provide updated information on
VECs, especially those considered threatened or endangered under the SARA.
4.1
Commercial Fisheries/DFO and Industry Surveys
The Terra Nova Development occurs in NAFO Unit Area (UA) 3Lt. Commercial fish harvesting within
the Study Area and on the Newfoundland Grand Banks generally has changed significantly over the last two
decades, shifting from a groundfish-based industry to primarily invertebrate harvesting. Until the early
1990s, the eastern Grand Banks fisheries were dominated by stern otter trawlers harvesting groundfish,
primarily Atlantic cod, as well as redfish, American plaice and several other species. In 1992, with the
acknowledgement of the collapse of several groundfish stocks, a harvesting moratorium was declared and
directed fisheries for cod are no longer permitted in these areas. Since the collapse of the groundfish
fisheries, formerly underutilized species – mainly shrimp and snow crab – have come to replace them as the
principal harvest in the general region, as they have in many other areas offshore Newfoundland and
Labrador.
4.1.1
Data Sources
This update is based on an analysis of 2005 DFO catch and effort data (LGL 2006b). The DFO catch
and effort data utilized are from DFO Newfoundland and Labrador Region and DFO Maritimes Region.
They were supplied in digital form by the Statistics Division (NL) and Commercial Data Division
(Maritimes) in February 2006.
4.1.2 DFO RV Survey Data
Analysis of DFO RV survey data collected in the western portion of 3Lt between 2002 and 2005 indicated
that the mean depth of catches ranged between 59 and 119 m. Sand lance dominated the catches in terms of
both weight (78%) and number of individuals (92%). The mailed sculpin was the only other species to
account for more than 1% of the total number of specimens caught. Other species that accounted for more
than 1% of the catch weight included unspecified invertebrates (7%), American plaice (4%), mailed sculpin
(2%), thorny skate (2%), shrimp (2%, and snow crab (2%). The update below focuses on any new
information or changes since the completion of recent EAs for the area (LGL 2004a,b; LGL 2005, LGL
2006b).
LGL Limited
Page 10
4.1.3
Domestic Fisheries in 2005
Commercial harvesting in 3Lt in 2005 was very similar to that in 2004. Snow crab accounted for
essentially all of the harvest in the vicinity of the Project Area. Spatial and temporal aspects of the crab
harvest in 2005 were similar to those observed in 2004. Most of the crab harvested in 3Lt was caught in
the eastern part of the UA, east of the project Area. In terms of timing, most 2005 crab harvesting
occurred between May and July, just as in 2004. The difference in 2005 was that July was peak harvest
time compared to May/June in recent years. This was likely due to the delayed start of the snow crab
fishery in 2005. The 3Lex and 3L200 snow crab fisheries closed officially on 31 July 2005, though some
of the harvest was not landed until the beginning of August. Snow crabs are harvested in 3Lt using
bottom-fished crab pots/traps (fixed gear).
Snow Crab
Snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) in the northwest Atlantic occurs over a broad depth range (20 to
>400 m). The distribution of this crustacean in waters off Newfoundland and southern Labrador is
widespread but the stock structure remains unclear (DFO 2006). While commercial-sized snow crabs
(≥95 mm carapace width) typically occur on mud or mud/sand substrate, smaller snow crabs are often
found on harder substrates as well as on the softer ones. Snow crab mating generally occurs during the
spring months. Depending on location, female snow crabs carry the fertilized eggs for one to
two years prior to larval hatch. Hatching normally occurs in late spring and summer after which time
the larvae remain planktonic for up to three to four months before settling to the benthic habitat (DFO
2006). Snow crab diet includes fish, clams, polychaetes, brittle stars, shrimp, crabs and other
crustaceans. Common predators of snow crabs include various ground fish, seals and snow crabs
themselves (DFO 2006).
Based on recent DFO multispecies bottom trawl surveys data, fishery logbook data and observer
sampling data, there are indications of decline of both exploitable biomass and recruitment in NAFO
Divisions 2J3KL. There has also been an apparent contraction of resource within these Divisions during
recent years (DFO 2006).
4.1.4
2006 Fisheries
No significant changes in the domestic fisheries data in the vicinity of the Project Area are expected in
2006.
4.1.5
DFO Science and Industry Surveys
Fisheries research surveys conducted by DFO, and sometimes by the fishing industry, are important to
the commercial fisheries to determine stock status, as well as for scientific investigation. There is some
potential for overlap with the DFO research vessel (R/V Teleost) survey in 3KL in 2006. Table 1
provides the relevant 2006 DFO research survey schedule plan for Newfoundland and Labrador Region
as of 2 June 2006 (J. Tillman, DFO St. John’s, pers. comm.). Effects on DFO research are unlikely but
the Proponents will communicate with DFO on this issue.
LGL Limited
Page 11
FFAWU biologists have recently noted that the FFAWU and relevant fishers are involved in an industry
survey for crab in various offshore harvesting locations. This relatively short (24 hour) survey typically
takes place in September.
Table 1.
Scientist
Brodie
Brodie
4.2
DFO science survey schedule, Newfoundland and Labrador, 2006.
Trawler
Teleost
Templeman/Needler
Survey Type
Multi-species 2J 3KLMNO (and possibly 2H)
Multi-species – Grand Banks
Start
End
Days
03-Oct-06
13-Oct-06
11
13-Oct-06
24-Oct-06
12
24-Oct-06
07-Nov-06
15
07-Nov-06
21-Nov-06
15
21-Nov-06
05-Dec-06
15
05-Dec-06
19-Dec-06
15
29-Sep-06
10-Oct-06
12
10-Oct-06
24-Oct-06
15
24-Oct-06
7-Nov-06
15
7-Nov-06
21-Nov-06
15
21-Nov-06
5-Dec-06
15
5-Dec-06
19-Dec-06
15
Seabirds
The avifauna community of the Terra Nova Development Area is composed mainly of true pelagic
species. The area lies on the eastern Grand Banks just inside two hundred nautical mile limit. This is
beyond the range of most species not fully adapted for prolonged periods on the open sea. Even most
members of the Laridae family (gulls) do not range as far off shore as the Terra Nova Development
Area. The main species groups that occur in the Project Area are Procellariidae (fulmars and
shearwaters), Hydrobatidae (storm-petrels), Sulidae (gannets), Phalaropodinae (phalaropes), Laridae
(skuas, jaegers, gulls and terns) and Alcidae (auks) (Table 2).
The avifaunal richness of the Grand Banks is demonstrated by the high numbers of seabird colonies on
the Avalon Peninsula and the northeast coast of Newfoundland. The nearly five million pairs of
seabirds nesting at these colonies use the waters off eastern Newfoundland for feeding and the rearing of
young (Table 3). These birds plus their young and non-breeding sub-adults use the Grand Banks for at
least part of the year. It is thought that migrant seabirds outnumber local breeders on the Grand Banks at
all seasons (Lock et al. 1994). Seabirds that nest in Labrador, the Canadian Arctic and Greenland,
especially Northern Fulmars, Thick-billed Murres, Dovekies, and Black-legged Kittiwakes migrate
through eastern Newfoundland waters or spend the winter there. In addition, millions of marine birds,
mostly Greater Shearwaters, migrate from the Southern Hemisphere to spend the summer in eastern
Newfoundland waters, especially the Grand Banks.
LGL Limited
Page 12
Table 2.
Bird species occurring in the Project Area and predicted monthly abundances.
Common Name
Procellariidae
Northern Fulmar
Greater Shearwater
Sooty Shearwater
Manx Shearwater
Hydrobatidae
Wilson's Storm-Petrel
Leach's Storm-Petrel
Sulidae
Northern Gannet
Phalaropodinae
Red Phalarope
Red-necked Phalarope
Laridae
Great Skua
South Polar Skua
Pomarine Jaeger
Parasitic Jaeger
Long-tailed Jaeger
Herring Gull
Lesser Black-backed
Iceland Gull
Glaucous Gull
Great Black-backed Gull
Ivory Gull
Sabine’s Gull
Black-legged Kittiwake
Arctic Tern
Alcidae
Dovekie
Common Murre
Thick-billed Murre
Atlantic Puffin
Scientific Name
Monthly Abundance
Jun
Jul
Aug
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
C
C
C
C
C
C
S
S
C
C
U
S
C
C
U
S
Oceanites oceanicus
Oceanodroma leucorhoa
C
C
S
C
Morus bassanus
S
S
Fulmarus glacialis
Puffinus gravis
Puffinus griseus
Puffinus puffinus
Phalaropus fulicarius
Phalaropus lobatus
Stercorarius skua
Stercorarius maccormicki
Stercorarius pomarinus
Stercorarius parasiticus
Stercorarius longicaudus
Larus argentatus
Larus fuscus
Larus glaucoides
Larus hyperboreus
Larus marinus
Pagophila eburnea
Xema sabini
Rissa tridactyla
Sterna paradisaea
Alle alle
Uria aalge
Uria lomvia
Fratercula arctica
S
S
S
S
VS
S
S
S
S
S
U
S
S
S
VS
S
S
S
VS
C
C
C
C
U
S
U
U
S
U
U
S
U
U
S
U
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
C
C
U
S
C
C
U
S
C
C
U
S
C
U
S
C
S
C
S
C
S
C
C
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
VS
S
S
S
S
S
S
VS
S
S
S
S
S
S
VS
S
S
S
S
S
S
VS
S
S
S
S
S
S
VS
S
S
S
S
S
S
VS
VS
S
U
VS
C
S
VS
S
S
VS
S
S
VS
S
S
U
S
U
S
S
S
S
S
VS
S
VS
S
VS
S
VS
S
S
VS
S
U
S
VS
S
S
U
S
S
S
U
VS
S
S
C
C
C
VS
S
VS
S
U
S
U
S
U
S
U
S
U
S
U
Source: Brown (1986); Lock et al. (1994); Baillie et al. (2005); Moulton et al. (2005); Moulton et al (2006b)
C = Common, U = Uncommon, S = Scarce, VS = Very Scarce.
LGL Limited
Page 13
Table 3.
Numbers of pairs of seabirds nesting at seabird colonies in Eastern Newfoundland.
Species
Wadham
Islands
Funk
Island
Cape Freels
and Cabot
Island
Baccalieu
Island
Witless
Bay Islands
Cape
St.
Mary’s
Middle Lawn
Island
Corbin
Island
Green
Island
-
13a
-
20a
40a,f
Presenta
-
-
-
Procellariidae
Northern Fulmar
Manx Shearwater
a
-
-
-
-
-
-
100
-
-
1,038d
-
250a
3,336,000a
621,651a,f
-
26,313a
100,000a
72,000a
1,712b
-
6,726b
-
-
-
Hydrobatidae
Leach’s Storm-Petrel
Sulidae
9,837b
Northern Gannet
Laridae
Herring Gull
Great Black-backed Gull
Black-legged Kittiwake
Arctic and Common Terns
-
500a
-
Presenta
4,638a,e
Presenta
20a
5,000a
-
Presentd
100a
-
Present1
166a,e
Presenta
6a
25a
-
-
a
12,975
a
a
-
810
376a
-
250a
-
-
412,524c
2,600a
250a
-
a,f
23,606
a
10,000
-
50
-
-
-
-
-
-
4,000a
83,001a,f
10,000a
-
-
-
181a
600a
1,000a
-
-
-
a
a,f
-
-
-
Alcidae
Common Murre
Thick-billed Murre
d
Razorbill
273
200
Black Guillemot
25a
Atlantic Puffin
TOTALS
a
a
100
a
25
100
676
1a
-
100a
20+a
Presenta
-
-
-
6,190d
2,000a
20a
30,000a
272,729a,f,g
-
-
-
-
7,902
426,235
3,145
3,385,088
1,007,107
27,826
26,413
105,075
72,000
Sources:
a
Cairns et al. (1989)
b
Chardine (2000)
c
Chardine et al. (2003)
d
Robertson and Elliot (2002)
e
Robertson et al. (2001) in Robertson et al (2004)
f
Robertson et al. (2004)
g
Rodway et al. (2003) in Robertson et al. (2004)
LGL Limited
Page 14
The Ivory Gull is the only bird listed on SARA (special concern on Schedule 1) that might occur in the
Study Area in winter or early spring (January-April). The Ivory Gull lives among the pack ice and thus
may occur in the Terra Nova Development Area in late winter if and when the pack ice reaches the
southern limit for the year. It would likely be a rare and less than annual occurrence in the Terra Nova
Development Area.
4.2.1
Seasonal Occurrence and Abundance of Seabirds
Table 2 summaries the abundance status by month for each species expected to occur regularly in the
Terra Nova Development Area. Information was derived from Brown (1986), Lock et al. (1994), Baillie
et al. (2005), Moulton et al. (2005) and Moulton et al. (2006b). The table uses categories to define a
relative abundance of seabirds species observed. Four categories of abundance were used: Common,
Uncommon, Scarce and Very Scarce:
•
•
•
•
Common = expected daily in moderate to high numbers,
Uncommon = expected regularly in small numbers,
Scarce = a few individuals expected, and
Very Scarce = very few individuals.
Overall world populations a species is taken into consideration for example Greater Shearwater are far
more numerous on a world wide scale compared to a predator like the Long-tailed Jaeger.
4.2.1.1
Procellariidae (fulmars and shearwaters)
Northern Fulmar and Greater Shearwater are two of the most abundant species on the Terra Nova
Development Area. In the northwest Atlantic Northern Fulmar breeds mainly in the Arctic and
Greenland. It is present year around in Newfoundland waters but is more abundant in winter. Greater
and Sooty Shearwater breed in the Southern Hemisphere and come to Newfoundland in the summer
during their non-breeding season to moult. A significant percentage of the total world population
Greater Shearwater migrates to eastern Newfoundland, particularly the Grand Banks for the annual
moult in June and July (Lock et al. 1994). Manx Shearwater is a European species with a small
population in Atlantic Canada. It is relatively rare on the Terra Nova Development Area.
4.2.1.2
Hydrobatidae (storm-petrels)
Two species of storm-petrel occur in Atlantic Canada. They are absent from Atlantic Canada in winter.
Leach’s Storm-Petrel is an abundant breeder in eastern Newfoundland (Table 3). It is common in most
Newfoundland waters during the summer months and it is the species most commonly associated with
stranding on vessel decks. Wilson’s Storm-Petrel visits the Northern Hemisphere from May to October
after breeding in the Southern Hemisphere. The Terra Nova Development Area is on the northern limit
of its range.
LGL Limited
Page 15
4.2.1.3
Sulidae (gannets)
Northern Gannet
Northern Gannet is the only member of the Sulidae family to occur in Newfoundland. Three of the five
major Northern Gannet colonies in North America are located in eastern Newfoundland at Cape St.
Mary’s, Baccalieu Island and Funk Island (Table 3). Gannets usually feed in shelf waters. Northern
Gannet is expected to be a scarce visitor to the Terra Nova Development Area, May to October.
Phalaropodinae (phalaropes)
Red Phalarope and Red-necked Phalarope breed in the Arctic to sub-Arctic in North America and
Eurasia. Phalaropes migrate at sea and both species winter at sea in the Southern Hemisphere. The two
phalarope species are often difficult to distinguish at sea. Red Phalarope usually outnumbers Rednecked Phalarope in Newfoundland waters (Brown 1986). Phalaropes seek out areas of upwelling and
convergence where rich sources of zooplankton are found. Red and Red-necked Phalarope are expected
to be very scarce to scarce in the Terra Nova Development Area from May to September.
Stercorariidae (Skuas and Jaegers)
Skuas
The two species of skua known to occur in the northwest Atlantic have been recorded on the Terra Nova
Development Area. Great Skua breeds in the Northern Hemisphere in Iceland and northwestern Europe.
South Polar Skua breeds in the Southern Hemisphere and migrates to the Northern Hemisphere for the
non-breeding season. Skuas are among the most difficult species to identify in the north Atlantic. Both
species are expected to be scarce in the Terra Nova Development Area, May to October.
Pomarine, Parasitic and Long-tailed Jaeger are closely related species with similar habits and difficult to
separate in the field. All three species of jaeger nest in the sub-Arctic to Arctic in North America and
Eurasia and winter at sea in the middle latitudes of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Sub-adults usually
don’t migrate all the way back to the breeding grounds. Some are present in Newfoundland waters all
summer. All three species of jaeger are expected to be scarce in the Terra Nova Development Area
from May to October.
4.2.1.4
Laridae (Gulls)
Seven species of gull are expected to occur annually in the Terra Nova Development Area. They are
Great Black-backed, Herring, Glaucous, Iceland, Lesser Black-backed, and Sabine’s Gull and Blacklegged Kittiwake. Great Black-backed Gull and Herring Gull are land based gulls breeding in
Newfoundland. Small portions of the overall population live at sea during the non-breeding season.
Great Black-backed Gull was fourth in abundance of all birds recorded from fixed platforms on the
Grand Banks, 1999-2002 (Baillie et al. 2005). Glaucous Gull and Iceland Gull breed in the low Arctic
LGL Limited
Page 16
and include Newfoundland as part of their wintering grounds. They occur regularly offshore in small
numbers during the winter. Black-legged Kittiwake breeds at seabird colonies in eastern Newfoundland
and Arctic Canada and winters at sea (Table 3). It is common most of the year on the Grand Banks.
Sabine’s Gull (May-September) and Lesser Black-backed Gull (April to November) are regular in very
small numbers.
Ivory Gull
Ivory Gull, listed as ‘special concern’ on Schedule 1 of SARA, might occasionally occur in the Terra
Nova Development Area when pack ice reaches the annual southern extremity in February and March.
See Section 13: Species at Risk for additional information.
4.2.1.5
Sterninae (Terns)
The Arctic Tern is only tern species expected in the Terra Nova Development Area. In the eastern
North America, the breeding range extends from the Arctic south to Massachusetts. Arctic Terns
migrate and winter at sea in the Southern Hemisphere. Arctic Tern is expected to be scarce in the Terra
Nova Development Area, May to September.
Alcidae (Auks)
Four species of auks are expected in the Terra Nova Development Area: (1) Dovekie, (2) Common
Murre, (3) Thick-billed Murre and (4) Atlantic Puffin. Dovekie and Thick-billed Murre are most
numerous in Newfoundland waters during the winter and migration periods. Common Murre and
Atlantic Puffin are abundant breeders in Newfoundland but winter mostly south of the Terra Nova
Development Area.
Dovekie breeds in the North Atlantic, mainly in Greenland and east to Nova Zemlya, Jan Mayen and
Franz Josef Land in northern Russia. Dovekie is an abundant bird with a world population estimated at
30 million (Brown 1986). It winters at sea south to 35°N. A large percentage of the Greenland breeding
Dovekies winter in the western Atlantic, mainly off Newfoundland (Brown 1986). Dovekie is expected
to be uncommon to occasionally common in fall, winter and spring in the Terra Nova Development
Area.
Thick-billed Murre breeds in the sub-Arctic to Arctic regions of North America and Eurasia. In Atlantic
Canada, it breeds as far south as Newfoundland. In the western Atlantic, Thick-billed Murre winters in
open water within its breeding range and south to New Jersey. Thick-billed Murre is the “winter murre”
in eastern Newfoundland. The sources of Thick-billed Murres in Newfoundland are the breeding
grounds in the eastern Arctic and Greenland where two million plus pairs breed (Brown 1986, Lock et.
al. 1994). Relatively small numbers (~2,000) breed in eastern Newfoundland (Table 3). Thick-billed
Murre is expected to be uncommon to occasionally common fall, winter and spring in the Terra Nova
Development Area.
LGL Limited
Page 17
Common Murre breeds in the north Pacific and north Atlantic. In the northwest Atlantic, it winters from
southern Newfoundland south to Massachusetts. Nearly a half million pairs of Common Murres breed
in eastern Newfoundland (Table 3). The maximum distance Common Murres are known to forage from
breeding sites is 200 km, placing the Terra Nova Development Area beyond the reach of Newfoundland
breeding colonies birds during the breeding season May to July. Common Murre is probably scarce on
the Terra Nova Development Area throughout the year.
The Atlantic Puffin breeds in the north Atlantic in Maine, Newfoundland and Labrador, Greenland,
Iceland and northwest Europe. In North America, it winters off southern Newfoundland and southern
Nova Scotia. About 12 million pairs of Atlantic Puffins breed in the North Atlantic (Brown 1986).
About 320,000 pairs nest in Atlantic Canada, mostly in eastern Newfoundland (Table 3). Atlantic Puffin
is probably a scarce visitor to the Terra Nova Development Area, May to November.
4.3
4.3.1
Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles
Marine Mammals
At least 20 species of marine mammals may occur in the Project Area including 16 species of cetaceans
(whales and dolphins) and three species of phocids (seals) (Husky 2000) (Table 4). Additional marine
mammal species may occur rarely. Most marine mammals are seasonal inhabitants, the waters of the
Grand Banks and surrounding areas being important feeding grounds for many of them. Recent marine
mammal monitoring programs from seismic vessels in the Jeanne d’Arc and Orphan basins provide new
information for the area. A marine mammal monitoring program was conducted from 3 October to
6 November 2005 during Husky’s seismic program in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin, just north of the Project
Area (see “Seismic Area” in Figure 3; Lang et al. 2006). In the Orphan Basin, marine mammal
monitoring was conducted from seismic vessels during the summers of 2004 and 2005 on behalf of
Chevron Canada Limited and co-venturers (Moulton et al. 2005, 2006b).
Population estimates and feeding information of many of the marine mammal species that occur within
the Project Area are provided in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.
4.3.1.1
Baleen Whales (Mysticetes)
The five species of baleen whales that may occur in the Project Area include the blue, fin, sei, humpback
and minke whale (Table 4). It is possible, but highly unlikely, that a North Atlantic right whale may
occur in the Project Area. Although nearly all of these species experienced depletion due to whaling, it
is likely that many are experiencing some recovery (Best 1993).
Humpback Whale.—The humpback whale has a cosmopolitan distribution. Its migrations between
high-latitude summering grounds and low-latitude wintering grounds are reasonably well known (Winn
and Reichley 1985). It is by far the most common baleen whale in Newfoundland waters. About 900
humpbacks are thought to use the Southeast Shoal of the Grand Banks as a summer feeding area, where
LGL Limited
Page 18
Table 4.
Marine mammals that may or likely occur in the Project Area and their COSEWIC and SARA status.
Common Name
Scientific Name
COSEWIC Status (SARA listing/status)
Baleen Whales
Blue Whale
Fin Whale
Sei Whale
Humpback Whale
Minke Whale
North Atlantic Right Whale
Toothed Whales
Sperm Whale
Northern Bottlenose Whale
Mysticetes
Balaenoptera musculus
Balaenoptera physalus
Balaenoptera borealis
Megaptera novaeangliae
Balaenoptera acutorostrata
Eubalaena glacialis
Odontocetes
Physeter macrocephalus
Hyperoodon ampullatus
Sowerby’s Beaked Whale
Bottlenose Dolphin
Killer Whale
Long-finned Pilot Whale
Short-beaked Common
Dolphin
Atlantic White-sided Dolphin
White-beaked Dolphin
Risso’s Dolphin
Striped Dolphin
Harbour Porpoise
Mesoplodon bidens
Tursiops truncatus
Orcinus orca
Globicephala melas
Delphinus delphis
Lagenorhynchus acutus
Lagenorhynchus albirostris
Grampus griseus
Stenella coeruleoalba
Phocoena phocoena
Not assessed (No status)
Not At Risk (No status)
Special Concern (No schedule or status; referred back to
COSEWIC)
True Seals
Grey Seal
Harp Seal
Hooded Seal
Phocids
Halichoerus grypus
Phoca groenlandica
Cystophora cristata
Endangered (Schedule 1)
Special Concern (Schedule 1)
Data Deficient (No status)
Endangered (Schedule 1)
Endangered—Scotian Shelf Population (Schedule 1); Not
At Risk—Davis Strait Population (No status)
Special Concern (Schedule 3)
Data Deficient (No status)
LGL Limited
Page 19
Figure 3.
Marine mammal sightings made from the MV Western Neptune during Husky’s Seismic Monitoring Program in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin during
October and November 2005 (Lang et al. 2006). (Note that there was no survey effort at the Terra Nova site as effort was concentrated at
Wildrose.)
LGL Limited
Page 20
Table 5.
Population estimates of marine mammals that occur or may occur in the Study Area (updated from
Buchanan et al. (2004)).
Species
Northwest Atlantic
(NW) Population
Size
Estimated Number
Population Occurring in the Study Area
Stock
Estimated
Number
Source of Updated
Information
Baleen Whales
Blue Whale
308 a
NW Atlantic
Unknown
Fin Whale
2814 b
Can. E. Coast
Unknown
Sei Whale
Unknown
Nova Scotia
Unknown
Humpback Whale
NF/Labrador
Minke Whale
5505
(11,570 in North
Atlantic)
4018 c
Can. E. Coast
Unknown
Waring et al. (2004)
322
NW Atlantic
Unknown
Krauss et al. (2001)
Toothed Whales
Sperm Whale
4702 d
North Atlantic
Unknown
Tens of thousands?
North Atlantic
Unknown
Common Bottlenose Dolphin
(offshore stock)
Risso’s Dolphin
Killer Whale
Unknown
29,774
NW Atlantic
Unknown
Reeves and Whitehead (1997);
Reeves et al. (1993); Waring et
al. (2004)
Katona et al. (1993)
30,000
Unavailable
US East Coast
Unknown
Unknown
14,524
NW Atlantic
Abundant
Short-beaked (Common)
Dolphin
30,768
NW Atlantic
Unknown
51,640 e
NW Atlantic
Unknown
Harbour Porpoise
Unknown
Unknown
NW Atlantic
Newfoundland
Unknown
Unknown
True Seals
Harp Seal
Hooded Seal
Grey Seal
5.2 (±1.2) million
626, 600
173,500
NW Atlantic
NW Atlantic
NW Atlantic
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Waring et al. (2004: Appendix
III)
COSEWIC (2004); Waring et al.
(2004)
1,700-3,200 Whitehead (1982); Katona and
Beard (1990); Baird (2003)
Reeves et al. (2003)
Lien et al. (1988); Waring et al.
(2004)
Nelson and Lien (1996); Waring
et al. (2004)
Katona et al. (1993); Waring et
al. (2004)
Palka et al. (1997); Waring et al.
(2004)
Wang et al. (1996); COSEWIC
(2004); Waring et al. (2004)
DFO (2000)
Hammill and Stenson (2000)
Hammill and Stenson (2000)
a
Based on surveys from the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This estimate deemed unsuitable for abundance estimation.
Based on surveys from George’s Bank to the mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
c
Based on surveys from George’s Bank to the mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence plus a survey in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
d
Based on surveys from Florida to the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
e
Gulf of Maine Stock.
b
LGL Limited
Page 21
Table 6.
Summary of marine mammal prey that occur or may occur in the Study Area.
Species
Baleen Whales
Humpback Whale
Blue Whale
Fin Whale
Sei Whale
Minke Whale
Toothed Whales
Sperm Whale
Bottlenose Dolphin
Killer Whale
Short-beaked (Common)
Dolphin
Risso’s Dolphin
Harbour Porpoise
True Seals
Harp Seal
Hooded Seal
Grey Seal
Prey
Source of Updated Information
Fish (predominantly capelin), euphausiids
Euphausiids
Fish (predominantly capelin), euphausiids
Copepods, euphausiids, some fish
Fish (predominantly capelin), squid, euphausiids
Euphausiids and other crustaceans
Piatt et al. (1989)
Cephalopods, fish
Primarily squid, also fish
Squid, some fish
Squid, fish (mackerel, butterfish)
Herring, squid, seals, dolphins, other whales
Short-finned squid, northern cod, amphipods
Squid, fish
Schooling fish (sand lance, herring), hake, squid
Fish (cod, capelin, herring), squid
Squid
Schooling fish (capelin, cod, herring, mackerel)
Piatt et al. (1989)
Piatt et al. (1989)
Reeves and Whitehead (1997)
Pitman (2002)
Gaskin (1992a)
Lien et al. (1988)
Nelson and Lien (1996)
Katona et al. (1993)
Palka et al. (1997)
Hai et al. (1996)
Reeves et al. (2003)
Fish (capelin, cod, halibut, sand lance),
crustaceans
Lawson and Stenson (1995); Lawson et
al. (1998); Wallace and Lawson (1997);
Hammill and Stenson (2000).
Fish (Greenland halibut, redfish, Arctic and Ross (1993)
Atlantic cod, herring), squid, shrimp, molluscs
Fish (herring, cod, hake, pollock), squid, shrimp
Benoit and Bowen (1990); Hammill et
al. (1995)
Source: Mobil (1985) with updates where indicated.
their primary prey is capelin (Whitehead and Glass 1985). Thirteen humpbacks were sighted offshore
on the Grand banks during the offshore supply vessel survey in 1999; most of these sightings were in
September (Wiese and Montevecchi 1999). Humpbacks were fairly common in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin
during marine mammal monitoring of Husky’s seismic program to the north of the Project Area (Lang et
al. 2006). There was a total of 27 sightings (35 individuals) in 237 hours of observation during the
program, which was conducted during October and early November 2005. Humpback whales were also
observed during the summers of 2004 and 2005 in and near the Orphan Basin (Moulton et al. 2005;
2006b).
Recent research on humpbacks suggests genetic as well as spatial segregation between feeding areas
within the North Atlantic (Valsecchi et al. 1997). The entire North Atlantic population is estimated at
approximately 10,600 individuals (Smith et al. 1999), the northwest Atlantic population at 5,505
individuals (Katona and Beard 1990) and the Newfoundland/Labrador population at 1,700 to 3,200
(Whitehead 1982).
LGL Limited
Page 22
Humpback whales occur relatively commonly within the Study Area, in both shallow (<400 m) and deep
(>400 m) areas. In terms of the number of sighting events recorded in the DFO database (DFO 2003c),
humpback whales ranked first in Divisions 3K, 3L (inside and outside the EEZ) and 3M, particularly in
the portion of Division 3L inside of the EEZ.
The western North Atlantic and North Pacific populations of humpback whale were singly designated by
COSEWIC as ‘threatened’ in April 1982. In April 1985, they were split into separate populations, at
which time the western North Atlantic population was designated as ‘special concern’. In May 2003,
this population was re-examined and subsequently de-listed (i.e., considered ‘not at risk’).
Blue Whale.—This species is considered endangered by COSEWIC and is listed as such on Schedule 1
of SARA. More information is found in Section 4 of this report.
Fin Whale.—The fin whale is commonly found on the Grand Banks during summer months (Piatt et al.
1989). Eight fin whales, including two calves, were sighted on the Grand Banks in August 1999, during
an offshore supply vessel survey (Wiese and Montevecchi 1999). This species is associated with the
presence of capelin, their predominant prey item in these waters (Piatt et al. 1989; Whitehead and
Carscadden 1985).
Recent genetic studies indicate that fin whale populations that summer in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland,
and Iceland may be genetically distinct from each other (Arnason 1995). The number of fin whales in
the northwest Atlantic was recently estimated at approximately 2,800 (Waring et al. 2004). This is
lower than estimates from previous reports, but supports the idea that fin whale numbers are decreasing
off Newfoundland (Whitehead and Carscadden 1985).
According to the DFO cetacean sightings database, these common visitors to the Study Area have been
sighted most often inside the EEZ in both Divisions 3K and 3L, particularly 3L. Fin whale sightings
have occurred in both the shallower (<400 m) and deeper (>400 m) areas of the Study Area. During
Husky Energy’s seismic program in the autumn of 2005 there were ten sightings of fin whales (16
individuals) in 237 observation hours in Jeanne d’Arc Basin (Figure 3; Lang et al. 2006).
The fin
whale was regularly observed in the deeper waters of the Orphan Basin during the summers of 2004 and
2005 (Moulton et al. 2005; 2006b).
The fin whale is considered a species of ‘special concern’ by COSEWIC and is being considered for
addition to Schedule 1 of SARA.
Sei Whale.—The sei whale has a cosmopolitan distribution, and prefers temperate oceanic waters
(Gambell 1985). Sei whales are known for their high mobility and unpredictable appearances (Reeves et
al. 1998). Incursions into nearshore waters of the Gulf of Maine, associated with high copepod
densities, are well documented (Payne et al. 1990; Schilling et al. 1992).
No reliable population estimates are available for sei whales. A 1970s estimate for the Nova Scotia
stock suggested a minimum population of 870 individuals (Mitchell and Chapman 1977). This
LGL Limited
Page 23
population was, until recently, only thought to range as far as the Grand Banks. Based on the DFO
cetacean sightings database, no sei whale sightings have been reported in the larger Study Area since
1980. (Fin and sei whales are often hard to distinguish; this could partially explain the low number of
reported sei whale sightings.) However, their range is currently known to extend well north of the Study
Area. Several sei whales were identified in the Orphan Basin during the summers of 2004 and 2005
(Moulton et al. 2005; 2006b). These observations are the first documented sightings of sei whales in the
area since 1980 (Buchanan et al. 2004). In 2004, there were six confirmed sightings consisting of nine
individuals which accounted for 13.0% of all baleen whale sightings (11.4% of total baleen whale
individuals). In 2005, there were 15 sightings (24 individuals) of sei whales in the Orphan Basin (13.7%
of total baleen whale individuals). Sei whales are still considered uncommon in the Project Area. The
Atlantic population of the sei whale is considered by COSEWIC as ‘data deficient’ (COSEWIC 2006).
Minke Whale.—Another baleen whale commonly found on the Grand Banks in summer is the minke
whale (Piatt et al. 1989). Eight individuals were sighted along the near-shore half of an offshore supply
vessel survey in August and September 1999 (Wiese and Montevecchi 1999). Like the fin whale, the
minke whale is associated with the presence of capelin, their predominant prey item in these waters
(Piatt et al. 1989; Whitehead and Carscadden 1985). The size of the northwest Atlantic population of
minke whales is not well known, but the best available estimate is ~4000 individuals (Waring et al.
2004).
Minke whales commonly occur within the Study Area. Most of the reported sightings (based on the
Regional Area defined in Husky 2000) in the DFO database (DFO 2003c) have occurred in Divisions
3K and 3L, inside the EEZ in areas with water depths <400 m. The minke whale was sighted in
relatively lower numbers than humpback, fin and sei whales during the 2004 and 2005 monitoring
programs in the Orphan Basin (Moulton et al. 2005; 2006b). In the Orphan Basin, minke whales were
sighted in water depths ranging from 2208-2452 m. During Husky’s 2005 seismic program in Jeanne
d’Arc Basin, four individuals of this species were sighted in ELs 1066, 1067 and 1089 in depths of 112
to 164 m (Lang et al. 2006).
North Atlantic Right Whale.—The North Atlantic right whale is a slow-moving whale prone to
collisions with ships. It feeds on krill and other crustaceans. The right whale is among the most
endangered whales and today it is distributed only in the northwestern Atlantic and numbers about 300
individuals. Off Atlantic Canada, right whales typically concentrate in the Bay of Fundy and off
southwestern Nova Scotia. However, some right whales are known to occur off Iceland and it is possible
(although highly unlikely) that it may occur in the Project Area. This species is designated endangered
by COSEWIC and is listed with this designation on Schedule 1 of the SARA.
4.3.1.2
Toothed Whales (Odontocetes)
Eleven species of toothed whales are found in the Study Area (Table 4). These species range from the
largest living toothed whale, the sperm whale (at approximately 18 m for an adult male (Reeves and
LGL Limited
Page 24
Whitehead 1997)) to one of the smallest whales, the harbour porpoise (at approximately 1.6 m for an
average adult (Gaskin 1992b)). Most of these marine mammals occur seasonally in the Study Area and
little is known regarding their distribution and population size in these waters. The Scotian Shelf
population of the northern bottlenose whale is a priority species under SARA due to its ‘endangered’
designation. However, the Davis Strait population of northern bottlenose whales is not considered at
risk by COSEWIC (2006).
Sperm Whale.—Sperm whales have an extensive worldwide distribution (Rice 1989). This species
routinely dives to depths of hundreds of metres and may occasionally dive to more than 3,000 m. They
apparently are capable of remaining submerged for longer than two hours, but most dives probably last a
half-hour or less (Rice 1989). The diet of sperm whales is dominated by mesopelagic and benthic squids
and fishes (Reeves and Whitehead 1997).
Population numbers of sperm whales are not known for the NW Atlantic. Reeves and Whitehead (1997)
caution that previous population estimates for this species are suspect given their long-distance
movements and lack of any clear stock structure. There is evidence that stock delineation in this species
may be dependent on the time scale of the measure used, further complicating reliable population
estimation (Dufault et al. 1999). The few sightings of sperm whales reported in the DFO cetacean
sightings database occurred in Division 3K, beyond the 400 m isobath. Sperm whales are known to feed
in deep water and it is possible that they occur regularly beyond the continental shelf. Sperm whales
were observed north of the Study Area in the Orphan Basin. There were five sightings in early July
2004 in water depths of 2600-2900 m (Moulton et al. 2005) and 32 sightings in June to October 2005 in
water depths of 803-2547 m (Moulton et al. 2006b). Sperm whales are considered ‘not at risk’ by
COSEWIC.
Sperm whales have previously been reported to be associated with areas of high plankton productivity
and upwelling, presumably because the squid upon which they feed are in turn feeding on the
zooplankton (Cushing 1969 in Griffin 1999). If sperm whale occur in or near the Project Area, it is
likely that they would be males because females usually do not venture north of 40 degrees latitude
(Griffin 1999; Whitehead 2003). Another relevant point is that they may not be highly concentrated as
males tend to be more dispersed than females (S. Dufault, LGL, pers. comm.). On the East Coast to the
south of Newfoundland, warm-core rings and Gulf Stream fronts have been identified as areas of
concentration for sperm whales (Griffin 1999).
Northern Bottlenose Whale. —Northern bottlenose whales are found only in the North Atlantic, with a
total population that may be in the tens of thousands (Reeves et al. 1993). Only a few individuals have
been sighted on the Grand Banks. Similar to sperm whales, bottlenose whales can dive for periods well
in excess of one hour, and their dives can reach depths of more than 1,000 m. They live primarily in
deep canyon and slope areas, where they prey on squid and deep-sea fishes. They are rarely found in
waters less than 500 m deep (Gowans 2002).
The Study Area is within the known range of the northern bottlenose whale. This whale’s life history is
poorly known and most records from Newfoundland are based on carcasses washed ashore. Water
LGL Limited
Page 25
depths in the Study Area do not exceed 500 m, and typically range between 100-200 m. Few bottlenose
whales are expected to occur on the relatively shallow Grand Banks. Several bottlenose whales were
observed during seismic monitoring programs in Orphan Basin in 2004 and 2005 but all in water depths
>1000 m (Moulton et al. 2005; 2006b). None were sighted during the Husky monitoring program in the
relatively shallow water of Jeanne d’Arc Basin during the autumn of 2005 (Lang et al. 2006).
The northern bottlenose whale that inhabits the Scotian Shelf is considered as ‘endangered’ by
COSEWIC whereas the Davis Strait population is considered ‘not at risk’ (COSEWIC 2006). This
species occurs in Newfoundland and Labrador waters but is unknown to what population they belong. It
is unlikely that sightings of northern bottlenose whales in the Orphan Basin would be from the Scotian
Shelf population as these whales are known to spend most of their time in the Gully, Haldimand and
Shortland canyons on the Scotian Slope and their home ranges are thought to be a few hundred
kilometers or less (Wimmer and Whitehead 2004).
Sowerby’s Beaked Whale.—This beaked whale is also known as the North Sea beaked whale because
its distribution appears to be centered there, based on numbers of strandings. In the 1980s, two mass
strandings were recorded on the northeast coast of Newfoundland. One involved three animals and the
other involved six (Katona et al. 1993). The Study Area lies within the known range of the Sowerby’s
beaked whale. This beaked whale is also a deep-sea diver that occurs mainly in areas where water depth
is 1,000 m or more. As is the case with the northern bottlenose whale, the life history of the Sowerby’s
beaked whale is not well understood and most Newfoundland records of it involve carcasses washed
ashore. There was one sighting (four individuals) of Sowerby’s beaked whale in the Orphan Basin in
September 2005 in a water depth of 2,534 m (Moulton et. al. 2006b). Water depths in the Project Area
do not exceed 500 m, and typically range between 100-200 m. Few Sowerby’s beaked whales are
expected to occur on the relatively shallow Grand Banks. They are considered of ‘special concern’ by
SARA (Schedule 3). A single beaked whale was recorded during the Husky seismic program in 2005 in
Jeanne d’Arc Basin (Lang et al. 2006). This whale lacked the prominent melon of the northern
bottlenose whale suggesting that it was a Sowerby’s or other species of beaked whale. It was seen north
of the Project Area in the southwest corner of EL 1067 in 128 m of water (Lang et al. 2006).
Bottlenose Dolphin.—A north-south migration has been assumed to occur along the east coast of North
America, with bottlenose dolphins moving into higher-latitude areas in summer and fall, then moving
farther south (or possibly just offshore) for the winter (Selzer and Payne 1988; Gowans and Whitehead
1995). The northern limit of this species range in the summer is likely the Flemish Cap (Gaskin 1992a).
It is considered ‘not at risk’ by COSEWIC. No bottlenose dolphins were identified during the Chevron
monitoring program in Orphan Basin in 2004 and there was one sighting (15 individuals) in 2005
(Moulton et al. 2005; 2006b). No bottlenose dolphins were identified during the Husky monitoring
program in Jeanne d’Arc Basin in October and November 2005 (Lang et al. 2006).
Risso’s Dolphin.—Risso’s dolphin is widely distributed in tropical and warm temperate oceans (Reeves
et al. 2003). It is usually found over deep water (>300 m) where they feed almost exclusively on squid.
They are abundant worldwide but are probably rare in the in and near the Project Area (Reeves et al.
2003).
LGL Limited
Page 26
Killer Whale. —The killer whale is a year-round resident that is thought to occur in relatively small
numbers in the Study Area (Lien et al. 1988). Three killer whales were sighted within 20 km of the
White Rose area on August 24, 1999 (Wiese and Montevecchi 1999). On a global basis, killer whales
are not endangered. There are no population estimates for the northwest Atlantic. No killer whales were
identified during the Chevron monitoring program in Orphan Basin in 2004 and 2005 (Moulton et al.
2005; 2006b). Similarly, no killer whales were sighted in Jeanne d’Arc Basin during Husky’s seismic
program in the autumn of 2005, although a group was sighted about 100 nmi northeast of the Avalon
Peninsula (Lang et al. 2006).
Long-finned Pilot Whale.—The most common toothed whale in the Study Area and also one of the
only year-round residents is the long-finned pilot whale (also known as the Atlantic pilot whale). This
species is considered abundant in the Grand Banks area from July through December. However, none
were sighted during a recent offshore supply vessel survey (Wiese and Montevecchi 1999). This species
was the most abundant marine mammal encountered in the Orphan Basin during the summer of 2004
and 2005(Moulton et al. 2005; 2006b). The northwest Atlantic population probably numbers between
4,000 and 12,000 individuals (Nelson and Lien 1996).
It is a common belief that long-finned pilot whales in the northwest Atlantic prey mainly on short-finned
squid in summer. However, this statement is based largely on evidence from inshore waters of
Newfoundland (Sergeant 1962), and other evidence suggests that they also prey on a variety of fish
species, as well as additional species of cephalopods (especially long-finned squid, Loligo pealei) at
other times and in other areas (Waring et al. 1990; Overholtz and Waring 1991; Desportes and
Mouritsen 1993; Nelson and Lien 1996; Gannon et al. 1997).
Most of the Survey Area (and adjacent areas) pilot whale sightings found in the DFO database (3K, 3L
and 3M) were reported in areas where water depth <400 m. It is considered ‘not at risk’ by COSEWIC.
Short-beaked Common Dolphin.—The short-beaked common dolphin’s western North Atlantic range
extends from Venezuela and the Gulf of Mexico to Newfoundland. These dolphins occur rather
commonly at sea off Newfoundland, usually in groups ranging from 50 to 200 individuals. Most of the
population in US waters is located south of Georges Bank in areas where water depth ranges between
100 and 200 m although they do occur out the 2,000 isobath. Short-beaked common dolphins eat a
variety of fishes and squids (Katona et al. 1993).
Considering the water depth ranges in areas where this cetacean has been sighted in US waters, shortbeaked dolphins could occur in the Project Area. This species was not observed during the 2004 CCL
monitoring program in the Orphan Basin (Moulton et al. 2005) but there were nine sightings (88
individuals) in and near Orphan Basin in 2005 (Moulton et al. 2006b). One group of 15 individuals was
sighted in EL 1089 during the autumn 2005 Husky monitoring program in Jeanne d’Arc Basin (Lang et
al. 2006).
Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin.—There are three stocks of Atlantic white-sided dolphins in the
northwest Atlantic: Gulf of Maine, Gulf of St. Lawrence, and Labrador Sea. The combined northwest
LGL Limited
Page 27
Atlantic population probably numbers 27,000 individuals (Palka et al. 1997). The number of whitesided dolphins in the Study Area is unknown. There were seven sightings of 250 individuals on the
Grand Banks in August to September 1999, including several sightings within approximately 30 km of
the White Rose site, during an offshore supply vessel surveys (Wiese and Montevecchi 1999). The most
easterly recorded sighting for individuals from the northwest Atlantic population occurred on the
Flemish Cap (Gaskin 1992c).
Few sightings of this dolphin within the Study Area are recorded in the DFO cetacean sightings
database. The sightings that are recorded occurred both inside and outside the 400 m isobath. There
were four sightings totaling 70 individuals in the Orphan Basin during the summer of 2004 (Moulton et
al. 2005) and 18 sightings (304 individuals) in 2005 (Moulton et al. 2006b). During the Husky
monitoring program in October and November 2005, two groups (25 individuals) were sighted to the
north of the Project Area in EL 1089 in Jeanne d’Arc Basin (Lang et al. 2006).
White-beaked Dolphin.—The white-beaked dolphin tends to be a coastal, cool-water species (Reeves et
al. 1999). This species seems to remain at relatively high latitudes throughout the fall and winter (Lien
et al. 1997), but the nature of their seasonal movements is uncertain. During the summer, approximately
3,500 white-beaked dolphins occur off southern Labrador (Alling and Whitehead 1987). This species
was regularly sighted during the 1980-81 Hibernia surveys, primarily during summer (Mobil 1985).
There was one sighting totaling five individuals in the Orphan Basin during the summer of 2004
(Moulton et al. 2005) and six sightings (52 individuals) during the summer of 2005 (Moulton et al.
2006b). One group of eight individuals was sighted in Jeanne d’Arc Basin in EL 1089 in 181 m of
water during the Husky monitoring program in autumn 2005 (Lang et al. 2006). There is no reliable
population estimate for the northwest Atlantic and the abundance of this species in the Study Area is
unknown. The total North Atlantic population may range from high tens of thousands to low hundreds
of thousands (Reeves et al. 1999). Ice entrapment is not uncommon in the bays of southern
Newfoundland in years when pack ice is heavy (Hai et al. 1996).
Harbour Porpoise. —The harbour porpoise is widely distributed throughout temperate waters, but its
population size in Newfoundland waters is unknown (Gaskin 1992b). Harbour porpoises that occur in
Newfoundland waters are believed to belong to a separate stock from those in the Gulf of St. Lawrence
and Bay of Fundy/Gulf of Maine regions. This is supported by differences in organochlorine
contaminant levels, which are lower in Newfoundland animals (Westgate and Tolley 1999), and by
differences in mitochondrial DNA haplotype frequencies (Wang et al. 1996). The northwest Atlantic
population of harbour porpoise was designated by COSEWIC as ‘threatened’ in April 1990 but in May
2003, it was downlisted to ‘special concern’. Harbour porpoises may occur in the Project Area. Two
members of this species were observed north of the Project Area on 7 October 2005 in EL 1089 in a
water depth of 165 m during the Husky monitoring program (Lang et al. 2006).
4.3.1.3
True Seals (Phocids)
Three species of true seals may occur in the waters of the Study Area (Table 4). Populations of harp,
hooded, and grey seals in Canada are thought to be increasing (Waring et al. 2004). Because of their
LGL Limited
Page 28
potential to interact with commercial fisheries, reasonable population estimates for the northwest
Atlantic are now available for most seal species. The main diet of seals consists of fish (including
capelin, cod, halibut and sand lance) and invertebrates such as squid and shrimp (Table 6), with
considerable seasonal, geographic and interannual variation in diet (Hammill et al. 1995; Lawson and
Stenson 1995; Wallace and Lawson 1997). Other seal species (harbour, bearded, and ringed seals) may
occur occasionally.
Harp Seal.—Harp seals whelp in the spring in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and in an area known as the
'Front' off southern Labrador and northeastern Newfoundland (Sergeant 1991; DFO 2000). The main
whelping patch for the northwest Atlantic breeding stock of harp seal is well north of the Study Area. In
heavy ice years, it is likely harp seal whelping herds extend into the Regional Area defined in Husky
(2000). Individuals from these two areas spend the summer in the Arctic and then migrate south in the
autumn. Surveys conducted during the early 1990s suggested that offshore waters on the northern edge
of the Grand Banks in NAFO fishing area 3L were an important over-wintering area for some animals
during those years (Stenson and Kavanagh 1994). Sighting effort from these surveys within the
Regional Area was low, but harp seals were present in low numbers. Similarly, data from satellite
transmitters deployed on harp seals suggest that the Grand Banks is an important wintering area for
some seals (Stenson and Sjare 1997). It is possible that more harp seals are occurring south of this area
in recent years because there has been an apparent change in their distribution. There has been a
documented increase in the extralimital occurrences (south of normal range) of harp seals in the northern
Gulf of Maine (McAlpine et al. 1999), which may also be occurring in the Grand Banks area. This
southward expansion may be related to the increase in the harp seal population or the recent changes in
ocean ecology that may be affecting their foraging success (McAlpine et al. 1999). The total population
estimate of harp seals in the northwest Atlantic is currently 5.2 (±1.2) million (DFO 2000).
The diet of harp seals foraging off Newfoundland and Labrador appears to vary considerably with age,
season, year and location. On the Grand Banks and Labrador Shelf, capelin predominates, followed by
sand lance, Greenland halibut and other pleuronectids (Wallace and Lawson 1997; Lawson et al. 1998).
Recent “historical” data on the diet of harp seals greater than a year old from northeast Newfoundland,
indicates that there was a shift in prey from capelin in 1982 to Arctic cod in 1986 and beyond, while
Atlantic cod remained relatively unimportant throughout this period. Harp seals collected from
nearshore waters forage intensively on a variety of fish and invertebrate species, although most of the
biomass is derived from relatively few species, particularly Arctic cod, capelin, Atlantic cod, Atlantic
herring and some decapod crustaceans. A recent consumption model estimates that harp seals consume
less Atlantic cod than once believed as seals apparently spend more time offshore than previously
thought (Hammill and Stenson 2000).
Hooded Seal.—Like the harp seal, the hooded seal is a North Atlantic endemic species that reproduces
on the spring pack ice of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and along the Labrador coast, and then migrates
northward to the sub-Arctic and Arctic to feed during the summer (Lydersen and Kovacs 1999). Data
collected from satellite transmitters deployed on hooded seals in the Gulf of St. Lawrence indicate that
some females feed near the Flemish Cap after breeding while migrating to Greenland waters (G.B.
Stenson, unpubl. data). Tagged males migrating to Greenland in early summer were recorded along the
LGL Limited
Page 29
Grand Banks shelf edge near the Flemish Pass. It appears that males spend little time foraging in this
area (G.B. Stenson, unpubl. data). Little is known regarding their winter distribution, although it is
believed that the majority of seals remain offshore; they have been seen feeding off the Grand Banks in
February. Surveys in the early 1990s suggested that, as was the case for harp seals, the offshore waters
on the northern edge of the Grand Banks also might be an important over-wintering area for hooded
seals (Stenson and Kavanagh 1994). Hooded seal sightings in the Regional Area (defined in Husky
2000) during these surveys were less frequent than harp seal sightings. The number of visitors to the
Study Area is unknown. However, these numbers may be increasing as hooded seals are apparently
expanding their southern range of occurrence (McAlpine et al. 1999) and population numbers are
increasing. Hooded seals increased from 470,000 individuals in 1990 to ~627,000 in 1996 (Hammill
and Stenson 2000).
Hooded seals consume a variety of prey. In nearshore areas of Newfoundland, prey (in decreasing order
of total wet weight) includes: Greenland halibut, redfish, Arctic cod, Atlantic herring and capelin.
Relatively small amounts of squid (Gonatus spp.) and Atlantic cod were also found (Ross 1993). Data
from offshore areas are limited, but suggest that similar prey species are consumed (J.W. Lawson and
G.B. Stenson, unpubl. data).
Grey Seal.—Grey seals that might occur in the Study Area are likely migrants from the Sable Island and
Gulf of St. Lawrence breeding populations. This species occurs in the Regional Area year-round, but
most commonly in July and August (Stenson 1994). The Sable Island and Gulf of St. Lawrence breeding
areas account for essentially all of the pup production in the northwest Atlantic, which increased
exponentially between 1977 and 1989 (Stobo and Zwanenburg 1990). The eastern Canadian population
of grey seals was estimated at 173,500 in 1996 (Hammill and Stenson 2000). The number that migrates
into the Study Area is unknown, but is believed to be low.
Grey seals are less tied to coastal and island rookeries than are harbour seals. They travel long
distances, one individual having been tracked over a distance of 2,100 km (McConnell et al. 1999). The
food of grey seals in the western North Atlantic includes at least 40 species, some of which are
commercially important (for example, Atlantic cod, herring, and capelin) (Benoit and Bowen 1990;
Hammill et al. 1995; Hammill and Stenson 2000).
4.3.2
Sea Turtles
Sea turtles are probably not common in the Study Area but are important to consider because of their
threatened or endangered status, both nationally and internationally. Three species of sea turtles may
occur in the Study Area: (1) the leatherback, (2) the loggerhead, and (3) the Kemp’s ridley (Ernst et al.
1994). However, little can be said to qualify, much less quantify, the degrees of occurrence of these
three sea turtle species within the Study Area due to lack of information. No sea turtles were sighted
during monitoring of seismic exploration of Jeanne d’Arc Basin to north by Husky in October and early
November 2005 (Lang et al. 2006). The leatherback turtle is listed as endangered by COSEWIC (2006)
and by the United States National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) (Plotkin 1995). Due to its risk designation by COSEWIC, the leatherback turtle is considered a
LGL Limited
Page 30
priority species under SARA. The Kemp’s ridley is also listed as endangered and the loggerhead turtle is
listed as threatened by NMFS and FWS (Plotkin 1995).
4.3.2.1
Leatherback Turtle
This species is considered endangered by COSEWIC and is listed as such on Schedule 1 of SARA. More
information is found in Section 4 of this report.
4.3.2.2
Loggerhead Turtle
This species is the most abundant sea turtle in North American waters (Ernst et al. 1994; Plotkin 1995).
The loggerhead turtle winters in the south, but some individuals migrate north into the Canadian Atlantic
with the Gulf Stream in summer (Cook 1984). An estimate of the population size in the Study Area is
unavailable; however, loggerheads are thought to occur in these waters during summer and fall.
Loggerheads found in Canadian waters are generally smaller than those found in coastal US waters,
indicating that they are younger animals (Witzell 1999).
Loggerhead turtles apparently dwell in both coastal and offshore waters but generally associate with
convergence zones, drift lines and downwellings (Carr 1986). Continental shelf waters are believed to
be important because they contain known loggerhead prey like crabs, molluscs, sea pens and various
gelatinous organisms (Payne et al. 1984). Loggerheads also eat algae and vascular plants (Ernst et al.
1994). Data from the US pelagic longline fishery observer program have added to the knowledge of
loggerhead distribution off Newfoundland (Witzell 1999). Seventy percent of loggerheads (936
captures) caught incidentally by this fishery between 1992 and 1995 from the Caribbean to Labrador
were captured in waters on and east of the 200 m isobath off the Grand Banks. Animals were caught in
this region during all months from June to November, with a peak in captures during September. Within
these waters, loggerhead captures corresponded closely with fishing effort, both clustered near the
200 m isobath where oceanographic features concentrate prey species for both the turtles and the
swordfish and tuna that are the targets of the longline fishers.
The loggerhead turtle may achieve sexual maturity at an age of 30 to 50 years and one of the largest
breeding aggregations is found on the central Atlantic coast of Florida (Magnuson et al. 1990). In fact,
90 percent of females nesting in the Atlantic do so in the southeastern US in what appear to be
demographically independent groups (based on mitochondrial DNA haplotype distributions) (Encalada
et al. 1998). Most females nest from three to five times in a season and average clutch sizes are between
95 to 150 eggs per nest (LeBuff 1990). It is unlikely that loggerhead sea turtles will occur in the Study
Area. No loggerhead sea turtles were sighted during CCL’s 2004 monitoring program in the Orphan Basin
(Moulton et al. 2005).
4.3.2.3
Kemp’s Ridley Turtle
Kemp’s ridleys are the smallest (40 to 50 kg) and rarest of all sea turtles within the Newfoundland area
(Cook 1984). These turtles apparently prefer shallow water and while adults rarely range beyond the
LGL Limited
Page 31
Gulf of Mexico, juveniles have been sighted along the southeast coast of Newfoundland near St. Mary’s
Bay and along southern Nova Scotia (Ernst et al. 1994). However, the number of Kemp’s ridley turtles
that may visit the Study Area is unknown, but likely low. They apparently prefer shallow water and
feed primarily on crabs, but occasionally they eat molluscs, fish, shrimp and vegetation (Shaver 1991).
This species has a very restricted nesting range, with 95 percent of nests laid along a 60-km stretch of
beach in Rancho Nuevo, Mexico. The number of females nesting there declined from as many as 40,000
over 50 years ago to approximately 700 in the late 1980s, but saw a steady increase in the 1990s as a result
of conservation measures (Marquez et al. 1999). It is unknown how long this species lives or at what age
it reaches sexual maturity. More than half of the adult females nest every year between April and
August (NRC 1990). They lay an average of 3.1 clutches per season, with an average of 103 eggs per
clutch (Rostal 1991). After a 48 to 65-day incubation period, eggs hatch and hatchlings head for the sea
(Mager 1985). Both eggs and hatchlings are very vulnerable to predators like ghost crabs, coyotes and
hawks (Plotkin 1995).
4.4
Sensitive Habitats and Times
Most important fishery areas are concentrated at more than 25-km distant from Terra Nova. As
indicated in the following section, a number of SARA-listed and COSEWIC-listed species may occur in
the Terra Nova area on more than a sporadic or ‘stray’ basis. These species are discussed in more detail
below.
4.5
Species at Risk
The following subsections provide an overview of species listed on SARA and/or considered at risk by
COSEWIC. Emphasis is given to those species listed as endangered or threatened on Schedule 1 of
SARA. Only those species listed as threatened or endangered on Schedule I have special legal protection
under SARA in terms of recovery strategies, penalties to be incurred for harming or killing individuals of
the species, or destroying critical habitat. It is not Petro-Canada’s intention to contravene the
prohibitions of SARA. Status of species that may occur at Terra Nova, at least sporadically, are shown in
Table 7.
Petro-Canada will apply adaptive management measures to deal with any changes to Schedule 1 of
SARA. Each year prior to commencement of the drilling season, Petro-Canada will consult with DFO
and Environment Canada regarding any listing changes of Schedule 1 species, releases of Recovery
Strategy Plans, and possible mitigation measures as they relate to Species at Risk.
Species profiles for those species most likely to be encountered in the Terra Nova area are provided
below.
LGL Limited
Page 32
Table 7.
SARA and COSEWIC listed species potentially occurring in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin Area (updated
October 2006).
Species
Atlantic Salmon
(Salmo salar) (Bay of
Fundy)
Atlantic cod (Gadus
morhua)
Porbeagle shark
(Lamna nasus)
SARA Status
Comments
Endangered (May 2003)
Some strays are possible. Mostly in
NB, NS but also in broader area of
Atlantic Ocean.
High likelihood of occurrence.
Moderate likelihood of occurrence.
Endangered (April 2006)
Low likelihood of occurrence.
Schedule 1: Threatened
Threatened (May 2001)
Schedule 1: Threatened
Not on SARA website.
Threatened (April 2006)
No schedule or status.
Schedule 1: Special
Concern
Special Concern (November
2000)
Special Concern (April 2006)
Schedule 1:
Special Concern
Blue Whale
(Balaenoptera
musculus)
Schedule 1:
Endangered
North Atlantic Right
Whale (Eubalaena
glacialis)
Schedule 1:
Endangered
Fin Whale
(Balaenoptera
physalus)
Sowerby’s Beaked
Whale (Mesoplodon
bidens)
Harbour porpoise
(Phocena phocena)
Schedule 1:
Special Concern
Special Concern (May 2005)
Extremely unlikely to occur in the
Project Area during June to December
as this species is associated with ice.
Very uncommon; more likely to be
encountered in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence and south coast of
Newfoundland than the Jeanne d’Arc
Basin.
Extremely rare, highly unlikely to
occur in Project Area. Predominantly
occur in and near Bay of Fundy in
Canadian waters.
Likely abundant within the Project
Area.
Schedule 3:
Special Concern
Unlikely to occur in the Project Area.
No schedule or status;
refered back to
COSEWIC
Schedule 1:
Endangered
Likely to occur within the Project
Area.
Likely very uncommon.
White shark
(Carcharodon
carcharias)
Northern wolffish
(Anarhichas
denticulatus)
Spotted wolffish
(Anarhichas minor)
Shortfin Mako Shark
(Isurus oxyrinchus)
Cusk (Brosme brosme)
Atlantic Wolffish
(Anarhichas lupus)
American eel (Anguilla
rostrata)
Blue shark (Prionace
glauca)
Ivory Gull (Pagophila
eburnea)
Leatherback Sea Turtle
(Dermochelys
coriacea)
Schedule 1:
Endangered
COSEWIC Status (date of
most recent status report)
Schedule 3: Special
Concern
No status; under
consideration for
addition to Schedule 1
LGL Limited
Page 33
4.5.1
Wolffishes
In the northwest Atlantic, there are three wolffish species (Anarhichus spp.) distributed from Davis
Strait to Maine. Kulka et al. (2004) examined changes in distribution and habitat associations of three
species of wolffish on the Grand Banks and Labrador Shelf using data collected during DFO RV surveys
in the spring and fall between 1971 and 2003. The three wolffish species are at the center of their
distributions, reaching highest density and covering the largest area on the northeast Newfoundland and
Labrador Shelf. On the Shelf, they distribute over a wide range of depths (25 to 1,400 m) with the
northern wolffish exhibiting the widest distribution of the three species, and the Atlantic or striped
wolffish exhibiting the narrowest. Kulka et al. (2004) demonstrated the importance of water
temperature to wolffish habitat. All three wolffish species appear to be associated with an extremely
narrow range of bottom water temperature (1.5 to 4.5 ºC). These fish appear to avoid areas where water
temperature <0 ºC. Kulka et al. (2004) also discussed the relationship between the three wolffish
species and sediment type. They reported that Atlantic wolffish and spotted wolffish were widely
distributed on various sediment types while northern wolffish appear to prefer areas with sediments
consisting of sand/shell hash, gravely sand and/or rock. Atlantic wolffish occurring in near-shore areas
appear to avoid areas where there is potential for the substrate to get stirred up (e.g., mud). The
distributions of both northern and spotted wolffish indicated by 1995-2003 trawl data are concentrated
towards the Shelf edge. Kulka et al. (2004) did not establish a clear link to survival or the proximal
causes of change in habitat but did demonstrate that thermal conditions appear to affect wolffish
population abundance. Note that wolffish are solitary, territorial fish that build nests on the ocean
bottom. The abundances of spotted and striped wolffish have been increasing slowly for several years.
Striped wolffish in Newfoundland waters spawn in September and the early juvenile stage remains close
to the spawning location. Spotted wolffish are thought to spawn in late autumn or early winter. On the
Grand Banks where the survey takes place, wolffish young-of-the-year (YOY) are more abundant in the
northern part of the surveyed area (i.e., more in 3K than in 3L) (Simpson and Kulka 2002). The juvenile
stages of all three wolffish species appear to be semi-pelagic.
The spotted wolffish and striped wolffish are regarded as commercial species in Newfoundland waters
while the northern wolffish is not (Simpson and Kulka 2002). The spotted and northern wolffish occur
in deep water (>475 m) where water temperatures normally range between 3 and 4ºC. They are thought
to spawn during the late fall/early winter months. Wolffishes typically feed on a variety of benthic
invertebrates and various fish.
DFO is presently preparing a ‘Wolffish Recovery Strategy and Management Plan’ (J. Simms, DFO
biologist, pers. comm.). D. W. Kulka of DFO is the Chair of the ‘Wolffish Recovery Team” and author
of the “Wolffish Recovery Plan’. Both the northern wolffish and spotted wolffish are incidentally
captured in fisheries directed at other commercial species, particularly Greenland halibut and snow crab.
Incidental capture in the commercial fishery is considered the dominant source of human induced
mortality for these two wolffish species. Permitting, education regarding live release, and gear
modification have been identified as the key issues in ensuring the survival of these fish (DFO 2004a;
Simpson and Kulka 2003). DFO (2004a) conducted a workshop on northern and spotted wolfish
LGL Limited
Page 34
designed to describe conditions that would allow human activity to occur without affecting recovery of
the species. It was decided that recent levels of mortality (2000-2002) do not impair the ability of these
two wolffish species to recover. It was noted that the commercial fishery was identified as the greatest
source of human-induced mortality for these fish. Since many of the fisheries that result in incidental
catches of northern and spotted wolffish are expected to decline over the next few years, mortality of
these fish should also decline. DFO (2004a) also concluded that offshore oil and gas activities will
result in negligible effects on wolfish.
4.5.2
Atlantic Cod
Atlantic cod has historically been distributed throughout Newfoundland and Labrador waters. It spawns
both inshore and offshore in the Newfoundland-Labrador region. Both the eggs and larvae of this
gadoid are planktonic. Atlantic cod fertilized eggs, larvae and early juvenile stages remain in the
plankton for 10 to 12 weeks. Juvenile Atlantic cod eventually shift from a pelagic diet to a benthic diet.
This occurs gradually over a standard length range of about 4 to 10 cm and seems to be related to change
in fish gape size. At the smaller standard lengths, the gape size is appropriate for feeding on smaller
pelagic prey only but as the fish grow, the larger gape size allows them to feed on larger benthic prey
(Lomond et al. 1998). Cod larvae and pelagic juveniles are primarily zooplankton feeders but once the
switch is made to the demersal lifestyle, benthic and epibenthic invertebrates become the main diet. As
the fish grow, the array of prey also widens. Prey often includes various crustaceans (crab, shrimp,
euphausiids) and fish (capelin, sand lance, redfish, other cod, herring). Adult cod are commonly prey
for seals and toothed whales, while juvenile cod are commonly preyed upon by squid, Pollock and adult
cod (Scott and Scott 1988).
The stock of Atlantic cod that occurs off northeast Newfoundland and Labrador is known as the
‘northern’ cod. The northern cod ecosystem historically encompassed a vast area from the northern
Labrador Shelf to the Grand Bank. Declines in this stock occurred first in the northern part of its
distributional area (NAFO Divisions 2GH) in the late 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, and then southward
(NAFO Division 2J) in the late 1980s and early 1990s. By the mid-1990s, most of the remaining
biomass was located in the southern part of the historical distributional area of this cod stock (NAFO
Divisions 3KL) (Rose et al. 2000). There is one belief that adult cod shifted their distribution southward
in the late 1980s and early 1990s (deYoung and Rose 1993) while others claim that this apparent
distributional shift was due to local overfishing, first in the north and then proceeding southward
(Hutchings 1996; Hutchings and Myers 1994).
Historically, many of the northern cod migrated between overwintering areas in deep water near the
shelf break and feeding areas in the shallower waters both on the plateau of Grand Bank and along the
coasts of Labrador and eastern Newfoundland. Some cod remained in the inshore deep water during the
winter. For centuries, several nations harvested cod while they were in the shallower inshore waters,
first with hook and line and later with nets that eventually evolved into the highly effective
Newfoundland cod trap. The deep waters, both inshore and offshore, remained refugia until the 1950s
when longliners and bottom trawlers joined the fishery. European bottom trawlers initially exploited the
outerbanks cod in summer and autumn but eventually extended the fishing to winter and early spring
LGL Limited
Page 35
when the cod were highly aggregated. At the same time as offshore cod landings increased
dramatically, the longliners fishing deep inshore waters introduced synthetic gillnets to the fishery.
The number and individual size of the fish declined through the 1960s and 1970s. Fishing effort by the
expanding Canadian trawler fleet increased dramatically following Canada’s extension of jurisdiction to
200 miles in 1977. The total allowable catch doubled between 1978 and 1984 due to an overestimation
of stock size during this period. The stock was finally closed to Canadian fishing in July 1992 due to its
decline (Lilly et al. 2001).
The northern cod has been called one of the least productive of the major cod stocks (Brander 1994).
Historically, Atlantic cod spawned on the northeast Newfoundland shelf in late winter and spring, and
then migrated shoreward across the shelf to the inshore feeding grounds, annually traversing distances of
500 km and more. Cross-shelf migration routes in spring followed thermal highways along deeper
basins and trenches wherein warmer, deeper northwest Atlantic waters undercut the colder surface
waters of the Labrador Current (e.g., an area on the northeast shelf known as the ‘Bonavista Corridor’)
(Rose 1993). Ollerhead et al. (2004) indicated that between 1998 and 2002, the largest number of
spawning cod along the northeast shelf edge of the Grand Banks occurred in June. Data from 1972 to
1997 indicated the highest number of spawning fish on the northeast shelf edge in April to June, peaking
in May (Ollerhead et al. 2004).
After spawning, cod on the northeast Newfoundland shelf initially move southward with the dominant
currents. Once they turn shoreward, as they do within the Bonavista Corridor, the dominant currents
may flow offshore, against and across the direction of migration. But flows in the deeper, warmer
waters of the Bonavista Corridor at times reverse and flow shoreward.
The offshore biomass index values from the fall research bottom trawl surveys in 2J3KL have been very
low for the past 10 years. The average trawlable biomass of 28,000 mt during 1999-2002 is about 2% of
the average in the 1980s (DFO 2003a). The same trend has been evident on the Flemish Cap during
recent years (Vázquez 2002).
The last substantial offshore concentrations of cod were seen at approximately 49-50ºN on the outer
shelf and upper slope as the stock collapsed. This is also one of few offshore areas where a very modest
increase in cod density has been seen in recent years. In addition, a substantial portion of the cod stock
used to overwinter on the northeastern slope of Grand Bank and the Nose of the Bank prior to the
collapse of the stock. There have not been any recent winter surveys in these areas so recent cod
concentrations are unknown. Nonetheless, these could be critical areas in the recovery of the offshore
northern cod. Most cod are found shallower than the 900-m depth (G. Lilly, DFO, pers. comm.). Kulka
et al. (2003) mapped the distributions of Atlantic cod on the Grand Banks based on spring and fall DFO
research survey data collected between 1972 and 2002.
In March 2003, the FRCC released some recommendations for the Northern Cod. For the bank substocks, the Council recommended a higher level of protection than has been in place since
commencement of the moratorium. In order to reduce by-catch mortality and disturbance to spawning
LGL Limited
Page 36
and juvenile cod, the FRCC recommended the establishment of experimental ‘cod boxes’ in both the
Hawke Channel and the Bonavista Corridor. The FRCC recommended that these areas be protected
from all forms of commercial fishery (except snow crab trapping) and other activity such as seismic
exploration (www.frcc-ccrh.ca).
In August 2003, the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador formed
the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Action Team for Cod Rebuilding. This Cod Action Team
(CAT) was to be led at the federal level by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and
provincially by the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture (DFA), and
was mandated to develop a stock rebuilding and long-term management strategy for the four major cod
stocks adjacent to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/codmorue/strategy_overview_e.htm).
The Canada-NL CAT has engaged in collaborative efforts. In addition to the regular exchange of
documents and information among the three CATs, there have been numerous face-to-face meetings,
workshops and teleconferences where content and process issues were discussed. As well, the Cod
Action Teams have provided regular updates to Deputies and Ministers through the Atlantic Council of
Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers (ACFAM) processes.
The plans of all three CATs propose advancing precautionary management decision-making frameworks
that use multiple indicators of stock status and productivity, that define reference points for delimiting
the "healthy", "cautious" and "critical" zones proposed by the DFO precautionary approach model, and
specify the need for pre-agreed decision rules.
All plans propose using a suite of biological indicators related to stock abundance and productivity
conditions in decision rules, although possibly in different ways. Of course, there are variations among
the CATs related to their proposals: The Quebec plan is unique in proposing the inclusion of social and
economic indicators (termed "objectives"), while the Canada-Maritimes Scotia-Fundy Strategy is unique
in proposing inclusion of regulatory compliance indicators in Total Allowable Catch (TAC) decision
rules.
On November 14, 2005, the Cod Rebuilding Strategy Report was presented to the ACFAM for their
review. The ACFAM approved the release of the Report, noting that it represents an important step
toward the rebuilding of Atlantic cod stocks, but that considerable work has yet to be done, including
analysis of some of the recommendations and development of an implementation plan.
All governments recognize the need for continued multilateral cooperation and collaboration for the
rebuilding of Atlantic cod stocks. As such, the ACFAM directed the Atlantic Fisheries and Aquaculture
Committee (AFAC) to continue to monitor progress and implementation of the Strategies, and to report
back to Deputies and Ministers, as necessary.
According to DFO’s 2006 assessment of 2J3KL northern cod, mortality of cod in the offshore is
exceedingly high. Spring and fall research bottom-trawl surveys in 2005 indicated that biomass of cod
LGL Limited
Page 37
remains low. The average biomass index from fall surveys between 2003 and 2005 was approximately
2% of the average during the 1980s. Fall survey data indicate that recruitment in the offshore is low and
that total mortality has been extremely high since at least the mid-1990s (DFO 2006).
4.5.3
Sharks
Porbeagle sharks are large, cold-temperate pelagic fish that are known to occur over a depth range of
surface to 715 m. The highly migratory porbeagle tends to be most abundant on continental offshore
fishing banks but is also found far from land in ocean basins and occasionally inshore (Scott and Scott
1988; DFO 2005a,b; SAUP 2006).
Porbeagle sharks are predators of various fish species and cephalopods (Campana et al. 2001). Pelagic
species are the primary prey of this shark during the spring and summer, followed by a shift to
groundfish species in the winter. This prey shift reflects the seasonal change of distribution of porbeagle
(i.e., migration to deeper areas in fall and winter) (Campana et al. 2001).
The great white shark is a highly migratory fish whose occurrence has been recorded over a broad depth
range of surface to 1,280 m. This shark is primarily a coastal and offshore inhabitant of continental and
insular shelves but it also occurs off oceanic islands far from any mainland. In Canadian waters, great
white sharks occur primarily between April and November, mostly during August (Scott and Scott 1988;
SAUP 2006).
The known depth range of occurrence of the migratory shortfin shark is 0 to 740 m., although it is
usually found in surface waters down to about 150 m. While typically oceanic, the shortfin mako is
sometimes found close inshore (Scott and Scott 1988).
The highly migratory blue shark is pelagic and has a known vertical distribution ranging from surface to
350 m. While primarily oceanic, this shark may be found close to shore where there is a narrowing of
the continental shelf (Scott and Scott 1988; SAUP 2006).
4.5.4 Other Fish
Inner Bay of Fundy Atlantic salmon is included as ‘endangered’ on Schedule I of SARA. Atlantic
salmon (Salmo salar) is an anadromous fish that lives in freshwater rivers for the first two years of life
before migrating to sea. During the spring and summer, salmon migrate from northeastern North
America to waters off Labrador and Greenland to feed for one or more years. While at sea, adult salmon
consume euphausiids, amphipods, and fishes such as herring, capelin, small mackerel, sand lance, and
small cod, and are prey of seals, sharks, pollock and tuna (Scott and Scott 1988). They return to coastal
North America in the fall, possibly passing through the Grand Bank region during their migration from
sea (Ritter 1989 in JWEL 2003). Therefore, it is possible that Atlantic salmon migrate through the
proposed Study Area during movements to and from the ocean feeding grounds. There is some thought
that the Inner Bay of Fundy salmon feed in the Gulf of Maine and therefore, probably do not migrate
through the Project Area. However, there is still considerable uncertainty associated with the migratory
LGL Limited
Page 38
patterns of these fish. Specifics such as dimensions and location of a migratory corridor, size and timing
of migration through the area, and the origins of the migrating salmon are unknown.
Cusk (Brosme brosme) are solitary, slow-swimming groundfish that occur on both sides of the North
Atlantic. In Canadian waters, this species is most common in the Gulf of Maine, Gulf of St. Lawrence
and the southwestern Scotian Shelf although its range is indicated for the entire Grand Banks (Scott and
Scott 1988). Although most common within a depth range of 128 to 144-m, some have been caught as
deep as 600 m. The diet of cusk is not well documented because their stomachs usually evert when they
are brought to the surface. Studies have shown that in European waters, cusk feed on crab, molluscs,
krill, cod, and halibut. Their diet is presumed to be the same in Canadian waters (Scott and Scott 1988).
An allowable harm assessment for cusk in Atlantic Canada was recently prepared by DFO (DFO
2004b).
It is known that this catadromous fish spawns at sea but few specifics relating to the movements of
adults and larvae at sea are understood (Scott and Scott 1988). It is speculated that adult American eels
spawn in the Sargasso Sea, located south of Bermuda and east of the Bahamas but migration corridors
between the Sargasso Sea and the Atlantic Canadian coast are not defined. Although unlikely, adult
and/or larval American eels could occur on the Grand Bank, the adults in late summer/fall and the larvae
in spring.
4.5.5
Ivory Gull
Ivory Gull (Pagophila eburnea) breeds in high Arctic Canada, Greenland and northern Eurasian. It
winters among the sea ice within its breeding range and slightly farther south. The southern-most extent
of its range is the northwestern Atlantic where it reaches northern Newfoundland waters (Haney and
MacDonald 1995). Ivory Gull often feed from the wing over water, dip feeding for small fish and
invertebrates on the surface. They occasionally plunge-dive so that the entire body may be submerged
momentarily. They also swim and pick at the surface of the water and walk on ice to scavenge animal
remains.
Ivory Gull is classified as a species of ‘special concern’ under SARA (www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca). This is
likely to change to ‘endangered’ because COSEWIC upgraded the status to ‘endangered’ in April 2006
(P. Thomas, CWS, pers. comm.) It is rare on a global scale with fewer than 14,000 pairs. The Canadian
Arctic supports a significant but declining population of Ivory Gull. The Canadian breeding population
was estimated at 2,400 individuals in the early 1980s (Thomas and MacDonald 1987). Extensive
surveys of historic breeding sites and adjacent breeding habitat in 2002 and 2003 and interviews with
Inuit residents indicate the breeding population in Canada has declined by 80% (Gilchrist and Mallory
2005). Reasons for the apparent decline of the Canadian breeding population are uncertain.
The winter range of the Ivory Gull in the Northwest Atlantic is among sea ice from the Davis Strait
south to about 50º to the Labrador Sea (Orr and Parsons, 1982 in Haney and MacDonald 1995),
extending south in pack ice to the northeast coast of Newfoundland (Brown 1986; McLaren et al. 1983).
Very little published information exists on Ivory Gull at sea off eastern Newfoundland. In 1981, an
LGL Limited
Page 39
aerial survey route of Petro-Canada’s OLABS Program centered about Funk Island (N49° 45’ W53°11’)
resulted in several Ivory Gull sightings. There were four sightings ranging from 1-5 individuals on the
February survey and four sightings ranging from 1-5 individuals on the March survey (McLaren et al.
1983). These sightings are about 450 km northwest of the northern Grand Banks. Ivory Gulls have
been documented on the northeast Avalon Peninsula at roughly the same latitude as the Project Area.
Winter storms occurring in January to April storms very occasionally bring small numbers of Ivory
Gulls to the St. John’s area (B. Mactavish, unpubl. data). Ivory Gulls (21 in total) have been reported by
environmental monitors from drill platforms on the northeast Grand Banks in 1999-2002; these
observations should be treated with caution as most individuals were reported during ice-free periods
(Baillie et al. 2005). There is a possibility that Ivory Gulls were confused with Iceland Gull (Larus
glaucoides), which are relatively more abundant and whose presence is not necessarily correlated with
the presence of ice. At a distance Ivory and Iceland Gulls can be easily confused given their similar
white colouration and long wing shape.
The thirty-year median of ice concentration shows ice extending into the northern edge of the Grand
Banks east to 48°W in late February to late March. The presence of sea ice does not does not imply that
Ivory Gulls will be present. The overall density of Ivory Gull on the pack ice in the Northwest Atlantic
is extremely low. The presence of sea ice is the condition most favourable for Ivory Gull occurrence.
Ivory Gull may occasionally occur in the small numbers in the Project Area when pack ice reaches the
northern Grand Banks in late winter (February to April). Ivory Gull would be extremely unlikely to
occur in the Project Area during the typical period when VSP surveys will be conducted.
4.5.6
Blue Whale
The blue whale is a cosmopolitan species with separate populations (and subspecies) in the North
Atlantic (B.m. musculus), North Pacific (B.m. brevicauda), and Southern Hemisphere (B.m. intermedia).
The global population is thought to range from 5000-12,000 individuals but a recent and reliable
estimate is not available. Blue whale abundance in the North Atlantic is currently thought to range from
600 to 1500 individuals, although more reliable and wide-ranging surveys are required for better
estimates (Sears and Calambokis 2002). Blue whales concentrate in areas with large seasonal
concentrations of euphausiids, its main prey (Yochem and Leatherwood 1985). Little is known about
the distribution and abundance of blue whales in the northwest Atlantic—especially the waters off
eastern Newfoundland. One area of blue whale concentration is the Gulf of St. Lawrence where 350
individuals have been catalogued photographically (Sears 2002).
There is insufficient data to determine population trends of the blue whale in the northwest Atlantic.
The blue whale is considered endangered by COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2002) and is listed as such on
Schedule 1 of the SARA. Accordingly, a Recovery Strategy is being developed under SARA and is likely
due for release in the near future (J. Lawson, DFO, pers. comm.) On a global level, the IUCN—World
Conservation Union, also considers the blue whale endangered (www.redlist.org). The original
population was reduced due to whaling and now their biggest threats are thought to be from ship strikes,
disturbance from increasing whale watching tours, entanglement in fishing gear, and pollution (Sears
and Calambokidis 2002).
LGL Limited
Page 40
Blue whales have a coastal and pelagic distribution and they are known to frequent areas of the Gulf of
St. Lawrence, the lower Estuary part of the St. Lawrence, and to a lesser extent the west and southwest
coasts of Newfoundland. Most sighting effort and sightings of blue whales have been made along the
Quebec North Shore from the Mingan and Anticosti islands region, off the Gaspé Peninsula, and west
into the St. Lawrence Estuary to the Saguenay River (Sears and Calambokidis 2002). Little survey
effort has been expended in other regions of the Gulf or elsewhere in the northwest Atlantic, especially
outside of the summer period. Information on the distribution of blue whales in winter is lacking. Some
blue whales become entrapped by ice (during heavy ice years) near the southwest coast of
Newfoundland (Stenson et al. 2003). Records of entrapped blue whales date back to 1868 and 41
individual blue whales (23 entrapment events) have been recorded since then. All entrapments with
available date information occurred during March and April and based on morphometric analyses most
whales were adults and one whale was a pregnant female (Stenson et al. 2003). There have been no
confirmed sightings of blue whales in or near the Petro-Canada Project Area (see Figure 4) based upon
available data provided by DFO. The closest sighting was made in June 1993, approximately 250 km
south of the Project Area. Based upon the DFO sighting database, most sightings of blue whales in
Newfoundland have occurred near the coast, which may, in part, be related to the lack of dedicated
marine mammal surveys in offshore waters. Blue whales were regularly sighted in offshore waters
(~100-3000 m deep) of the Laurentian sub-basin area during a recent seismic monitoring program in
June to September 2005. In fact, blue whales were the most frequently sighted baleen whale species.
Sighting rate of blue whales was highest in water depths ranging from 2000-2500 m (Moulton et al.
2006a). However, no blue whales were sighted in the deep waters of the Orphan Basin during seismic
monitoring programs conducted during the summers of 2004 (Moulton et al. 2005) and 2005 (Moulton
et al. 2006b). No blue whales were sighted during a seismic monitoring program in the Jeanne d’Arc
Basin in October and November 2005 (Lang et al. 2006); baleen whales are typically less abundant on
the Grand Banks in late fall vs. summer. It is possible that blue whales may occur in the Jeanne d’Arc
Basin but numbers are expected to be low.
In the Northern Hemisphere, blue whales mate and calve from late fall to mid-winter and become
sexually mature at the ages of 5-15 (Yochem and Leatherwood 1985). Blue whales are thought to live
for 70-80 years and potentially longer (Yochem and Leatherwood 1985).
Blue whales feed almost exclusively on euphausiids (krill) such as Thysanoessa raschii and
Meganyctiphanes norvegica (Yochem and Leatherwood 1985). Blue whales also feed on copepods
(e.g., Temora longicornis) and some fish species (Kawamura 1980; Reeves et al. 1998). Areas where
blue whales are known to occur correspond to areas where their prey aggregate in great abundance
(Simard and Lavoie 1999).
4.5.7
Leatherback Sea Turtle
The leatherback is the largest living turtle (2.2 m in length and over 900-kg (Morgan 1989)) and it also
may be the most widely distributed reptile, as it ranges throughout the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian
oceans and into the Mediterranean Sea (Ernst et al. 1994). Adults engage in routine migrations between
LGL Limited
Page 41
Figure 4.
Location of Blue Whale Sightings Relative to Petro-Canada’s Project and Study Areas (data from
DFO marine mammal database).
temperate and tropical waters, presumably to optimize both foraging and nesting opportunities.
Leatherbacks are less genetically diverse than other sea turtle species and may have less-rigid homing
instincts (Dutton et al. 1999).
The worldwide population of leatherbacks is currently estimated at between 26,000 and 43,000 (Dutton
et al. 1999). The current population is thought to be declining as major nesting colonies have declined
in the last 20 years, although an increase in leatherbacks nesting in Florida has been reported in the last
few years (Dutton et al. 1999). Despite its patchy worldwide distribution and in contrast to other sea
turtles, adult leatherbacks are regularly sighted in the waters off Nova Scotia and Newfoundland from
June to October (with peak abundance in August), where they likely come to feed on jellyfish, their
primary prey (Bleakney 1965; Cook 1981; 1984). The scattered nature of the data make estimating the
number of turtles in the Canadian Atlantic difficult. However, the North Atlantic Leatherback Turtle
Working Group (NALTWG), created in 1997, is currently conducting research on the distribution and
abundance of the leatherback. More leatherbacks visit waters near the Study Area than was once
believed.
LGL Limited
Page 42
Leatherbacks, both adults and juveniles, undergo annual migrations that include areas off southern
Newfoundland (James et al. 2005). The analysis of satellite telemetry, morphometric and fishing
entanglement data identified areas of high-use habitat of leatherbacks in Northwest Atlantic waters. It
was shown that leatherbacks do not migrate along specific routes but that they utilize broad areas of the
Atlantic. Leatherback sea turtles did exhibit foraging site fidelity to shelf and slope waters off Canada
and the northeastern United States (James et al. 2005). Satellite-tagged leatherbacks (caught off Cape
Breton) mostly occurred well southwest of the Project Area during June to October (although some
southward migrations did not begin until December; James et al. 2005). Available data are insufficient
to determine if leatherbacks spend more time in slope vs. shelf waters (see ALTRT (2006) for a review).
There have only been two confirmed sightings of leatherback sea turtles in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin to the
best of our knowledge. Both sightings occurred during a seismic monitoring program in the Jeanne
d’Arc Basin on 14 August 2006 on behalf of Husky (LGL, unpubl. data). No leatherbacks were sighted
during Chevron’s seismic monitoring program in the Orphan Basin in 2004 and 2005 and during
Husky’s seismic monitoring program in Jeanne d’Arc Basin in fall 2005 (Moulton et al. 2005, 2006b;
Lang et al. 2006).
Data from the US pelagic longline fishery observer program have also added to the knowledge of
leatherback distribution off Newfoundland (Witzell 1999). Nearly half of the leatherbacks (593
captures) caught incidentally by this fishery between 1992 and 1995 from the Caribbean to Labrador
were captured in waters on and east of the 200 m isobath off the Grand Banks (Witzell 1999). Animals
were caught in this region during all months from June to November, with the bulk of captures from
July to September. Not surprisingly, leatherback captures within these waters corresponded closely with
fishing effort, both clustered near the 200 m isobath.
The apparent common northerly occurrence of this species compared to other sea turtles may be
attributed to an ability to maintain body temperatures of 25ºC in sea water as much as 18ºC cooler. An
adult was even observed by fishermen in Trinity Bay, Newfoundland swimming amongst ice (Goff and
Lien 1988). Twenty leatherbacks were reported off Newfoundland between 1976 to 1985, 14 were
entangled in fishing gear (Goff and Lien 1988).
Little is known about the biology of the leatherback. It nests from April through November in the
tropics along sandy beaches. Females deposit an average of five to seven nests per year, with clutch size
averages varying geographically (Plotkin 1995). Nothing is known about the behaviour or survivorship
of post-hatchlings. Loss of nesting habitat due to development and erosion, predation by animals, and
poaching of adults and eggs for consumption inhibit the recovery of this species. Ingestion of plastic
materials, which leatherbacks presumably mistake for jellyfish is common and can be fatal. The loss of
individuals (primarily through net entanglement) in the Canadian Atlantic is not known to critically
contribute to population decline (Cook 1981).
LGL Limited
Page 43
5.0 Effects Assessment
5.1
Assessment Methodology
The methodology of this effects assessment and definitions are consistent with all of the EAs conducted
for Petro-Canada and Husky since 1996 (e.g., Petro-Canada 1996a,b; Husky 2000, 2001; LGL 2003,
2004a,b) and are provided in detail below.
5.1.1
Scoping
Extensive scoping was undertaken for the VSP EA Update; scoping was conducted by reference to the
Project Description (dated March 2006), previous VSP EAs for the Grand Banks (e.g., LGL 2003,
2004b) and seismic EAs for the Grand Banks region (Buchanan et al. 2004; LGL 2005), consultation
with the fishing industry and regulatory agencies, the C-NLOPB Scoping Document (dated 2 May
2006), and a scoping meeting with Ms. Kim Coady (15 May 2006).
5.1.2
Valued Ecosystem Components
The valued ecosystem components (VEC) approach was used to provide focus for the EA because it is
neither feasible nor advisable to consider every species of the thousands that occur on the Grand Banks.
This approach is more or less standard practice for Canadian EA. It was recognized by the authors that
this approach does not capture every conceivable situation for every species but it does consider
potentially important effects on those species or groups of species that are of most interest
commercially, socially, culturally and aesthetically to society.
VEC selection was based upon project scoping with the following foremost considerations:
•
•
•
commercial, social, cultural and aesthetic importance to society
at least some potential sensitivity to project activities, and
potential for interaction with project activities
The following VECs were selected:
•
•
•
•
•
Commercial fish and fisheries (including fish habitat considerations) with emphasis on snow
crab and the Species at Risk (e.g., Atlantic cod and wolffish)
Seabirds with emphasis on those species most likely sensitive to VSP activities (e.g., deep
divers such as murres) or vessel stranding (e.g., petrels), and Species at Risk (e.g., Ivory
Gull)
Marine Mammals with emphasis on those species (thought to be) most sensitive to lowfrequency sound (e.g., baleen whales) or Species at Risk (e.g., blue whale).
Sea Turtles with emphasis on those species most likely to occur in the Study Area and
considered at risk under SARA (i.e., leatherback sea turtle)
Species at Risk including those mentioned above plus several others
LGL Limited
Page 44
5.1.3
Boundaries
For the purposes of this EA, the following boundaries are defined.
Temporal—the temporal boundaries are the estimated remainder of the life of the Terra Nova
Development (15-17 years) with each VSP acquisition period lasting from 8-36 hours. Within a given
year, there would be a maximum of two VSP surveys.
Project Area—the ‘Project Area’ was defined as the Terra Nova Development area, including all of
Petro-Canada’s production licenses.
Affected Area—the ‘Affected Area’ varies according to the specific vertical and horizontal distributions
and sensitivities of the VECs of interest and is defined as that area within which effects (physical or
important behavioural ones) have been reported to occur.
Regional Area—the regional boundary (or Study Area) is the boundary of the Grand Banks as defined
in the Hibernia, Terra Nova, White Rose, and other EAs.
Transboundary—this boundary is not relevant in the present case as neither the Project nor affected
areas will extend across any international boundaries.
5.1.4
Effects Assessment Procedures
The systematic assessment of the potential effects of the Project phase involved three major steps:
1. preparation of interaction (between Project activities and the environment) matrices;
2. identification and evaluation of potential effects including description of mitigation measures
and residual effects; and
3. preparation of residual effects summary tables, including evaluation of cumulative effects.
Identification and Evaluation of Effects
Interaction matrices are provided below that identify all possible Project activities that could interact
with any of the VECs (e.g., Table 8). The matrices include times and places where interactions could
occur. The interaction matrices are used only to identify potential interactions; they make no
assumptions about the potential effects of the interactions.
Interactions were then evaluated for their potential to cause effects. In instances where the potential for
an effect of an interaction was deemed impossible or extremely remote, these interactions were not
considered further. In this way, the assessment could focus on key issues and the more substantive
environmental effects.
LGL Limited
Page 45
An interaction was considered to be a potential effect if it could change the abundance or distribution of
VECs, or change the prey species or habitats used by VECs. The potential for an effect was assessed by
considering:
•
•
•
•
the location and timing of the interaction;
the literature on similar interactions and associated effects (including the Hibernia and Terra
Nova EIS, White Rose EA; drilling EAs, other VSP EAs for offshore Newfoundland);
when necessary, consultation with other experts; and
results of similar effects assessments and especially, monitoring studies done in other areas.
When data were insufficient to allow certain or precise effects evaluations, predictions were made based
on professional judgement. Effects were evaluated for the proposed VSP surveys, which include
mitigation measures that are mandatory or have become standard operating procedure in the industry.
Note that the potential impacts from vessel wastes, air emissions, accidental events, and the physical
presence of the VSP vessel and/or drill rig1 are not assessed in detail in this report. Based on
consultations for previous VSP programs2, regulatory agencies and other stakeholders identified noise
from the airgun array as the key issue for assessment. Wastes such as black and grey water, bilge water,
deck drainage, discharges from machinery spaces, and garbage produced from VSP vessel and/or drill
rig will be treated according to the Offshore Waste Treatment Guidelines (NEB et al. 2002). As such,
impacts from waste disposal during the VSP programs would be negligible. Accidental events are
captured within the Terra Nova Development EIS and are not considered here. This is valid because
these activities are well within the original Project Description and EIS. It should be noted that a VSP
program does not normally use streamers, which in a typical seismic program would be filled with
Isopar (a kerosene-like petroleum product not that different from diesel oil, which was covered in the
EIS).
Classifying Anticipated Environmental Effects
The concept of classifying environmental effects simply means determining whether they are negative
or positive. The following includes some of the key factors that are considered for determining adverse
environmental effects, as per the CEA Agency guidelines (CEAA 1994):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
negative effects on the health of biota;
loss of rare or endangered species;
reductions in biological diversity;
loss or avoidance of critical/productive habitat;
fragmentation of habitat or interruption of movement corridors and migration routes;
transformation of natural landscapes;
discharge of persistent and/or toxic chemicals;
toxicity effects on human health;
Discharges from drill rigs were assessed in Petro-Canada (1996a).
No issues were identified during consultations for the VSP program proposed by Petro-Canada (see Section 1.3).
LGL Limited
Page 46
2
•
•
•
loss of, or detrimental change in, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes;
foreclosure of future resource use or production; and
negative effects on human health or well-being.
Mitigation
Mitigation measures appropriate for each effect predicted in the matrix were identified and the effects of
various Project activities were then evaluated assuming that appropriate mitigation measures are applied.
Residual effects predictions were made taking into consideration both standard and project-specific
mitigations.
Application of Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects
Several criteria were taken into account when evaluating the nature and extent of environmental effects.
These criteria include (CEAA 1994):
•
•
•
•
•
magnitude;
geographic extent;
duration and frequency;
reversibility; and
ecological, socio-cultural and economic context.
Magnitude describes the nature and extent of the environmental effect for each activity. Geographic
extent refers to the specific area (km2) affected by the Project activity, which may vary depending on the
activity and the relevant VEC. Duration and frequency describe how long and how often a project
activity and/or environmental effect will occur. Reversibility refers to the ability of a VEC to return to
an equal, or improved condition, at the end of the project. The ecological, socio-cultural and economic
context describes the current status of the area affected by the project in terms of existing environmental
effects. Two tables are provided for each group of VECs, indicating the results of the effects analysis
and the significance of those effects.
Magnitude was defined as:
Negligible
An interaction that may create a measureable effect on individuals but would never
approach the 10% value of the ‘low’ rating. Rating = 0.
Low
Affects > 0 to 10 percent of individuals in the affected area (e.g., geographic extent).
Effects can be outright mortality, sublethal or exclusion due to disturbance. Rating = 1.
Medium
Affects > 10 to 25 percent of individuals in the affected area (see geographic extent).
High
Affects more than 25 percent of individuals in the affected area (e.g., geographic extent).
LGL Limited
Page 47
Definitions of magnitude used in this EA have been used previously in numerous offshore oil-related
environmental assessments under CEAA. These include assessments of exploratory drilling (LGL
2005a), development drilling (Petro-Canada 1996a; Husky 2000, 2001, 2002), 3D seismic surveys
(Buchanan et al. 2004), VSP surveys (LGL 2003), and wellsite geohazard surveys (LGL 2004a).
Durations are defined as:
1
2
3
4
5
=
=
=
=
=
< 1 month
1 – 12 month
13 – 36 month
37 – 72 month
>72 month
Short duration can be considered 12 months or less and medium duration can be defined as 13 to 36
months.
Cumulative Effects
Projects and activities considered in the cumulative effects assessment included:
•
•
•
•
•
Survey program within-project cumulative impacts. For the most part, and unless otherwise
indicated, within-project cumulative effects are fully integrated within this assessment;
Hibernia, Terra Nova, and White Rose oilfield developments;
Other offshore oil exploration activity (seismic surveys and exploratory drilling);
Commercial fisheries; and
Marine transportation (tankers, cargo ships, supply vessels, naval vessels, fishing vessel
transits, etc.).
Integrated Residual Environmental Effects
Upon completion of the evaluation of environmental effects, the residual environmental effects (effects
after project-specific mitigation measures are imposed) are assigned a rating of significance for:
•
•
•
each project activity or accident scenario;
the cumulative effects of project activities within the Project; and
the cumulative effects of combined projects on the Grand Banks.
These ratings are presented in summary tables of residual environmental effects. The last of these points
considers all residual environmental effects, including project and other-project cumulative
environmental effects. As such, this represents an integrated residual environmental effects evaluation.
LGL Limited
Page 48
The analysis and prediction of the significance of environmental effects, including cumulative
environmental effects, encompasses the following:
•
•
•
determination of the significance of residual environmental effects;
establishment of the level of confidence for prediction; and
evaluation of the scientific certainty and probability of occurrence of the residual impact
prediction.
Ratings for level of confidence, probability of occurrence, and determination of scientific certainty
associated with each prediction are presented in the tables of residual environmental effects. The
guidelines used to assess these ratings are discussed in detail in the sections below.
Significance Rating
Significant environmental effects are those that are considered to be of sufficient magnitude, duration,
frequency, geographic extent, and/or reversibility to cause a change in the VEC that will alter its status
or integrity beyond an acceptable level. Establishment of the criteria is based on professional judgment,
but is transparent and repeatable. In the VSP EA, a significant effect is defined as:
•
Having a high magnitude or medium magnitude for a duration of greater than one year and
over a geographic extent greater than 100 km2
An effect can be considered significant, not significant, or positive.
Level of Confidence
The significance of the residual environmental effects is based on a review of relevant literature,
consultation with experts, and professional judgment. In some instances, making predictions of
potential residual environmental effects is difficult due to the limitations of available data (for example,
technical boundaries). Ratings are therefore provided to indicate, qualitatively, the level of confidence
for each prediction.
Determination of Whether Predicted Environmental Effects are Likely to Occur
The following criteria for the evaluation the likelihood of any predicted significant effects are used.
•
•
probability of occurrence; and
scientific certainty.
Follow-up Monitoring
Because any effects of the Project on the environment will be short-term and transitory, and for the most
part negligible, there is no need to conduct follow-up monitoring. However, there will be some level of
LGL Limited
Page 49
monitoring during the course of the Project, and if these observations indicate an accidental release of
fuel or some other unforeseen occurrence, then some follow-up monitoring may be conducted under the
guidance of the C-NLOPB and other appropriate agencies.
5.2
Effects of the Environment on the Project
The effects of the environment on the project are negligible (and thus not significant) for the following
reasons:
•
The VSP surveys are sometimes conducted from the drill rig and thus are relatively
unaffected by wave conditions.
•
VSP surveys are typically scheduled during the summer months when the weather and ice
conditions are good for operations.
•
Surveys are of short duration (8-36 h) and thus any potential effects of bad wind or wave
conditions can be mitigated by judicious scheduling.
VSP surveys are less affected by surface weather noise because the receivers are in the well bore and not
being towed on streamers near the surface as with large seismic surveys.
5.3
Potential Effects on Fish and Commercial Fishery
5.3.1
Fish
Research on the impact of seismic energy on fish and invertebrates has been limited to date compared to
studies involving marine mammals. The existing body of information relating to the impacts of seismic
on marine fish and invertebrate species can be considered in three categories: (1) pathological effects,
(2) physiological effects, and (3) behavioural effects. Pathological effects include lethal and sub-lethal
damage to the animals, physiological effects include changes to the levels of various constituents of the
blood/haemolymph, and behavioural effects refer to changes in exhibited behaviours of the fish and
invertebrate animals. These three general types of effects are certainly interrelated in complex ways.
For example, some physiological and behavioural changes could potentially lead to pathological effects
such as mortality.
Pathological Effects.—In water, pathological effects of organisms exposed to seismic energy might
depend on at least two features of the sound source: (1) an extremely high received peak pressure, and
(2) a relatively short time for the pressure to rise and decay. Considering the peak pressure and
rise/decay time characteristics of seismic arrays used today, the pathological zone for fish and
invertebrates would be expected to be within a few metres of the seismic source.
Laboratory and controlled field studies have revealed damage to fish ear structures from exposure to
seismic pulses from air cylinders (McCauley et al. 2000a, 2000b, 2003). In these studies fish were
LGL Limited
Page 50
exposed to received sound levels that ranged from ~145 to 190 dB re 1µPa [rms] at distances of 5 to 800
m from the source. The total duration of exposure was 1.7 hours at six air releases per minute. The
experimental fish were caged and exposed to high cumulative levels of seismic energy, much higher
than levels expected for this VSP survey. In addition, the fish were caged which makes direct
comparisons with free-ranging fish difficult. Atlantic salmon were exposed within 1.5 m of underwater
explosions (Sverdrup et al. 1994). Compared to air cylinder sources, explosive detonations are
characterized by higher peak pressures and more rapid rise and decay times, and are considered to have
greater potential to damage marine biota. In spite of this, no salmon mortality was observed
immediately after exposure or during the seven-day monitoring period following exposure.
Laboratory studies have indicated that exposure to intense noise can affect the auditory thresholds of
fish. Temporary threshold shift (TTS) can occur in fish under certain conditions, followed by complete
recovery after varying lengths of time. Smith et al. (2004) found that goldfish had significant threshold
shift after only 10 minutes of exposure to white noise (160-170 dB re 1 µPa; unspecified measure type)
and that these shifts increased linearly up to approximately 28 dB after 24 hours of exposure to the
noise. Threshold shifts did not increase beyond the 24-hour exposure time. After 21 days of exposure
to the noise, the goldfish hearing sensitivity required 14 days to recover to normal levels. The likelihood
of occurrence for this degree of noise exposure under natural conditions, including the proposed
geohazard survey, is low.
Studies have also been conducted to investigate the effects of seismic exposure on fish eggs and larvae
(Kostyuchenko 1973; Booman et al. 1996; Dalen et al. 1996). In all cases, damage was minimal and any
mortality effect was not significantly different from the experimental controls. Saetre and Ona (1996)
applied a ‘worst-case scenario’ mathematical model to investigate the effects of seismic energy on fish
eggs and larvae and concluded that mortality rates caused by exposure to seismic are so low compared
to the natural mortality that the impact of seismic surveying on recruitment to a fish stock must be
regarded as insignificant.
The pathological impacts of seismic energy on marine invertebrate species have also been investigated.
In their pilot study, Christian et al. (2004) exposed adult male snow crabs, egg-carrying female snow
crabs and fertilized snow crab eggs to the energy from seismic air guns. Eggs were exposed to received
sound levels of ~221 dB re 1µPa [0-peak] at 2 m from the source. The total duration of exposure was 33
minutes at six air releases per minute. Neither acute nor chronic (12 weeks after exposure) mortality was
observed for the adult male and female crabs. There was a significant difference in development rate
noted between the exposed and unexposed fertilized eggs. The egg mass exposed to seismic energy had
a higher proportion of less-developed eggs than the unexposed mass. It should be noted that both egg
masses came from a single female and any measure of natural variability was unattainable. However, a
result such as this does point to the need for further study.
Pearson et al. (1994) exposed Stage II larvae of the Dungeness crab to single discharges from a seven-air
cylinder seismic array and compared their mortality and development rates with those of unexposed
larvae. For immediate and long-term survival and time to molt, this field experiment did not reveal any
statistically significant differences between the exposed and unexposed larvae, even those exposed
within 1 m of the seismic source.
LGL Limited
Page 51
Bivalves of the Adriatic Sea were also exposed to seismic energy and subsequently assessed (LaBella et
al. 1996). No effects of the exposure were noted.
In 2001 and 2003, there were two incidents of multiple strandings of the giant squid (Architeuthis dux)
on the north coast of Spain. The timing of the strandings generally coincided with the timing of
geophysical seismic surveys in the Bay of Biscay. A total of nine giant squids, either stranded or
moribund surface-floating, were collected at these times. Guerra et al. (2004) presented evidence of
acute tissue damage in the stranded and surface-floating giant squids after conducting necropsies on
seven (six females and one male) of the relatively fresh nine specimens. The authors speculated that the
one female with extensive tissue damage was affected by the impact of acoustic waves. However, little
is known about the impact of marine acoustic technology on cephalopods. Unfortunately, the authors
did not describe the seismic sources, locations, and durations of the Bay of Biscay surveys and no
conclusive link can be made between the seismic surveys and the strandings.
McCauley et al. (2000a,b) reported results from the exposure of caged cephalopods (50 squid and two
cuttlefish) to sound from a single 20-in3 air cylinder. The cephalopds were exposed to both stationary
and mobile sound sources. The two-run total exposure times of the three trials ranged from 69 to 119
minutes at an air release rate of once every 10 to 15 seconds. Maximum zero-to-peak exposure levels
were greater than 200 dB re 1 µPa. Statocysts were removed and preserved but at the time of the study
report publication, results of the statocyst analyses were not available. Some of the squid fired their ink
sacs apparently in response to the first air release of one of the trials and then moved quickly away from
the air cylinder. However, the ink sac firing was not observed for similar or greater received levels if
the signal was ramped up. In addition to the above-described startle responses, some squid also moved
towards the water surface as the air cylinder approached. Sound shadows, areas of lower sound pressure
levels, are known to occur near the surface (Richardson et al. 1995). An increase in swimming speed
was also exhibited by some of the squid. No squid or cuttlefish mortalities were reported as a result of
these exposures.
Physiological Effects.—Biochemical responses by marine fish and invertebrates to acoustic stress have
also been studied, albeit in a limited way. Studying the variations in the biochemical parameters
influenced by acoustic stress might give some indication of the extent of the stress and perhaps forecast
eventual detrimental effects. Such stress could potentially affect animal populations by reducing
reproductive capacity and adult abundance.
McCauley et al. (2000a,b) used various physiological measures to study the physiological effects of
exposure to seismic energy on various fish species, squid and cuttlefish. No significant physiological
stress increases attributable to seismic were detected. Sverdrup et al. (1994) found that Atlantic salmon
subjected to acoustic stress released primary stress hormones, adrenaline and cortisol as a biochemical
response although there were different patterns of delayed increases for the different indicators. Caged
European sea bass were exposed to seismic energy and numerous biochemical responses were indicated.
All returned to their normal physiological levels within 72 hours of exposure.
LGL Limited
Page 52
Stress indicators in the haemolymph of adult male snow crabs were monitored after exposure of the
animals to seismic energy (Christian et al. 2004). No significant differences between exposed and
unexposed animals in terms of the stress indicators (e.g., proteins, enzymes, cell type count) were
indicated.
In December 2003, egg-bearing female snow crabs (Chionoecetes opilio) off Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
were caught, caged and subsequently exposed to seismic energy released during a commercial seismic
survey (DFO 2004e). In this study, crab were exposed to a maximum received sound level of ~190 dB
re 1µPa [rms]. The distance between the seismic source and the caged crab ranged from ~70 m to 35 km
and crab were periodically exposed to seismic pulses over a 9-day period. Both acute and chronic
effects on the adult female crabs, embryos and larvae hatched from the eggs were studied in this DFO
study. There were two clear observations from the study.
1. The seismic survey did not cause any acute or chronic (5 months) mortality of the crab, or
any changes to the feeding activity of the treated crabs being held in the laboratory.
2. Neither the survival of embryos being carried by the female crabs during exposure nor the
locomotion of the larvae after hatch appeared to be affected.
The parameters that were found to be not significantly different between the treatment and control crabs
include acute and chronic mortality, external damage, eye condition, heart condition, spermathecae
condition, larval locomotion, embryonic survival, and certain conditional aspects of antennules, gills and
statocysts. While the observed differences are not definitive, the observed similarities are.
Lagardère (1982) presented results from laboratory experimentation that suggested that behavioural and
physiological reactions of brown shrimp (Crangon crangon) were modified by exposure to increased
background noise in tanks. Shrimp were kept in two environments for about three months, one noisier
than the other. The mean difference in sound level in the 80 to 400 Hz range was 30 to 40 dB
(unspecified measure type). There was a significant difference in growth rate and reproduction rate
between the two groups. Those shrimp in the noisier environment had lower rates of each compared to
those in the quieter environment. Increased noise levels also appeared to increase aggression
(cannibalism) and mortality rate, and decrease food uptake. It is unclear how tank experiments with
sound relate to conditions in the wild. The likelihood of occurrence for this type of noise exposure
under natural conditions, including the proposed geohazard survey, is low.
Behavioural Effects.—Because of the relative lack of indication of serious pathological and
physiological effects of seismic energy on marine fish and invertebrates, most concern now centers on
the possible effects of exposure to seismic on the distribution, migration patterns and catchability of fish
(i.e., behavioural effects). There is a need for more information on exactly what effect such sound
sources might have on the detailed behaviour patterns of fish and invertebrates at different ranges.
LGL Limited
Page 53
Fish and Invertebrate Acoustic Detection and Production
Hearing in fishes was first demonstrated in the early 1900s through studies involving cyprinids (Parker
1903; Bigelow 1904 in Kenyon et al. 1998). Since that time, numerous methods have been used to test
auditory sensitivity in fishes, resulting in audiograms of over 50 species. These data reveal great
diversity in fish hearing ability, mostly due to various peripheral modes of coupling the ear to some
internal structures, including the swim bladder. However, the general auditory capabilities of less than
0.2% of fish species are known so far.
For many years, studies of fish hearing have reported that the hearing bandwidth typically extends from
below 100 Hz to approximately 1 kHz in fishes without specializations for sound detection, and up to
about 7 kHz in fish with specializations that enhance bandwidth and sensitivity. Recently there have
been suggestions that certain fishes, including many clupeiforms (i.e., herring, shads, anchovies, etc.)
may be capable of detecting ultrasonic signals with frequencies as high as 126 kHz (Dunning et al. 1992;
Nestler et al. 1992). Studies on Atlantic cod, a non-clupeiform fish, suggested that this species could
detect ultrasound at almost 40 kHz (Astrup and Møhl 1993).
Mann et al. (2001) showed that the clupeiform fish, the American shad, is capable of detecting sounds
up to 180 kHz. They also demonstrated that the gulf menhaden is also able to detect ultrasound while
other species such as the bay anchovy, scaled sardine, and Spanish sardine only detect sounds with
frequencies up to about 4 kHz.
Among fishes, at least two major pathways for sound to get to the ear have been identified. The first and
most primitive is the conduction of sound directly from the water to tissue and bone. The fish’s body
takes up the sound’s acoustic particle motion and subsequent hair cell stimulation occurs due to the
difference in inertia between the hair cells and their overlying otoliths. The second sound pathway to
the ears is indirect. The swim bladder or other gas bubble near the ears expands and contracts in volume
in response to sound pressure fluctuations, and this motion is then transmitted to the otoliths. Only some
species of fish appear to be sound pressure sensitive via this indirect pathway to the ears and are called
‘hearing specialists’. Hearing specialists’ sound pressure sensitivity is high and their upper frequency
range of detection is extended above those species that hear only by the previously described direct
pathway. The species having only the direct pathway are known as ‘hearing generalists’ (Fay and
Popper 1999). Typically, most fish detect sounds of frequencies up to 2,000 Hz but, as indicated, others
have detection ranges that extend to much higher frequencies.
Fish also possess lateral lines that detect water movements. The essential stimulus for the lateral line
consists of differential water movement between the body surface and the surrounding water. The
lateral line is typically used in concert with other sensory information, including hearing (Coombs and
Montgomery 1999).
Because they lack air filled cavities and are often the same density as water, invertebrates detect
underwater acoustics differently than fish. Rather than being pressure sensitive, invertebrates appear to
be most sensitive to particle displacement. However, their sensitivity to particle displacement and
LGL Limited
Page 54
hydrodynamic stimulation seem poor compared to fish. Decapods, for example, have an extensive array
of hair-like receptors both within and upon the body surface that could potentially respond to water- or
substrate-borne displacements. They are also equipped with an abundance of proprioceptive organs that
could serve secondarily to perceive vibrations. Crustaceans appear to be most sensitive to sounds of low
frequency (i.e., < 1,000 Hz) (Budelmann 1992; Popper et al. 2001).
Many fish and invertebrates are also capable of sound production. It is believed that these sounds are
used for communication in a wide range of behavioural and environmental contexts. The behaviours
most often associated with acoustic communication include territorial behaviour, mate finding, courtship
and aggression. Sound production provides a means of long distance communication as well as
communication when underwater visibility is poor (Zelick et al. 1999).
Behavioural Effects of Seismic
Studies investigating the possible effects of seismic on fish and invertebrate behaviour have been
conducted on both uncaged and caged animals. Studies looking at change in catch rate regard potential
effects of seismic on larger spatial and temporal scales than are typical for close range studies that often
involving caged animals (Hirst and Rodhouse 2000).
Engås et al. (1996) assessed the effects of seismic surveying on cod and haddock behaviour using
acoustic mapping and commercial fishing techniques. Results indicated that fish abundance decreased
at the seismic survey area and the decline in abundance and catch rate lessened as one moved away from
the survey area. Engås et al. (1996) found that fish abundance and catch rates had not returned to preshooting levels five days after cessation of shooting. Other studies that used fishing catch rate as an
indicator of behavioural shift also showed reduced catch rates, particularly in the immediate vicinity of
the seismic survey (Løkkeborg 1991; Skalski et al. 1992). Anecdotal information from Newfoundland,
Canada indicated that snow crab catch rates showed a significant reduction immediately following a
pass by a seismic survey vessel. Other anecdotal information from Newfoundland indicated that a
school of shrimp showing on a fishing vessel sounder shifted downwards and away from a nearby
seismic source. Effects were temporary in both the snow crab and shrimp anecdotes (G. Chidley and H.
Thorne, commercial fishermen, pers. comm.).
Using telemetry techniques, Shin et al. (2003) investigated changes in the swimming behaviour of caged
Israeli carp (Cyprinus carpio) in response to underwater explosions. The received sound levels ranged
from 140 to 156 dB re 1 µPa (unspecified type of measurement). Immediately after an explosion, the
fish swimming area was reduced. After one hour, the area had returned to pre-explosion size. Other
behavioural reactions included downward movement and increased swimming speed but these
behavioural shifts also returned to normal shortly after cessation of explosions. Considering that
underwater explosions are considered worst-case scenarios compared to air cylinder discharges and that
these fish exhibited minor short-term behavioural changes, reactions of these fish to air cylinder
discharges should be minimal.
LGL Limited
Page 55
The influence of seismic activity on pelagic fish (i.e., herring, blue whiting and mesopelagic species)
was investigated using acoustic mapping off western Norway in 1999 (Slotte et al. 2004). The
distribution and abundance of pelagic fish within the survey area and in surrounding waters out to 50 km
from the survey area were mapped three times and compared, and the abundance was recorded
immediately prior to and after shooting along some of the survey transects. The inconclusive results
indicated that the acoustic abundance of pelagic fish was higher outside than inside the survey area after
exposure to seismic activity. At the same time, the abundance of pelagic fish prior to seismic activity
was not significantly different than abundance immediately after shooting along some of the survey
transects, indicating that no significant short-term horizontal movement occurred. However, there were
indications that some of the pelagics might have moved downwards in response to the seismic activity.
Marine fish inhabiting an inshore reef off the coast of Scotland were monitored by telemetry and remote
camera before, during and after air cylinder releases (Wardle et al. 2001). Although some startle
responses were observed, the seismic source releases had little overall effect on the day-to-day
behaviour of the resident fish.
Studies on the effects of sound on fish behaviour have also been conducted using caged or confined fish.
Such experiments were conducted in Australia using fish, squid and cuttlefish as subjects (McCauley et
al. (2000a,b). Common observations of fish behaviour included startle response, faster swimming,
movement to the part of the cage furthest from the seismic source (i.e., avoidance), and eventual
habituation. Fish behaviour appeared to return pre-seismic state 15 to 30 minutes after cessation of
seismic. Squid exhibited strong startle responses to the onset of proximate air cylinder activities by
releasing ink and/or jetting away from the source. The squid consistently made use of the ‘sound
shadow’ at surface where the sound intensity was less than at 3-m depth. These Australian experiments
provided more evidence that fish and invertebrate behaviour will be modified at some received sound
level. Again, these behavioural changes seem to be temporary.
Other species involved in studies that have indicated fish behavioural responses to underwater sound
include rockfish (Pearson et al. 1992), Pacific herring (Schwarz and Greer 1984), and Atlantic herring
(Blaxter et al. 1981).
Christian et al. (2004) conducted an experimental commercial fishery for snow crab before and after the
area was exposed to seismic pulses. No drastic decrease in catch rate of commercial-size snow crab was
observed after seismic activity commenced. Another behavioural investigation by Christian et al. (2004)
involved caging snow crabs, positioning the cage 50 m below a seven-gun array, and observing the
immediate responses of the crabs to the onset of seismic activity by remote underwater camera. No
obvious startle behaviours were observed.
The first field evidence for previous suggestions that underwater sound may provide an orientation cue
for the pelagic stages of coastal crustaceans has recently been published (Jeffs et al. 2003). The authors’
work in New Zealand involved the testing of the responses of planktonic stages of common coastal crabs
to artificial sources of natural reef sound played through underwater sound projectors. The results
LGL Limited
Page 56
demonstrated that the pelagic stages of the crabs responded to underwater sounds and that they may use
this cue to orient themselves towards the coast.
Potential interactions between the Project and fish VEC are shown in Table 8. The minimal spatial and
temporal overlap and the relatively small nature of the proposed Project suggest that there is no potential
for significant effects on the fish VEC. The proposed VSP survey is predicted to have negligible to low
physical effects on the various life stages of the fish VEC species over a duration of <1 month in an area
<1 km2 (Table 9). Therefore, any physical effects of the Project on the fish VEC would be not
significant (Table 10).
Similarly, the proposed VSP survey is predicted to have negligible to low disturbance (behavioural)
effects on the various life stages of the fish VEC species over a duration of <1 month in an area 1011,000 km2 (Table 9). Therefore, any disturbance (behavioural) effects of the Project on the fish VEC
would be not significant (Table 10).
Table 8.
Potential interactions between the Project and Fish VEC.
Valued Environmental Component: Fish
Feeding
Reproduction
Plankton
Benthos
Eggs/Larvae
Juveniles1
Adult Stage
Pelagic Fish
PROJECT ACTIVITIES
x
x
x
Vessel Lights
x
x
x
Sanitary/Domestic Waste
x
x
x
Air Emissions
2
Garbage (N/A)
Noise
Vessel
x
x
x
x
x
Seismic Array
x
x
x
x
x
Shore Facilities (N/A)3
Accidental Spills (N/A)4
OTHER PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES
x
x
x
x
x
Hibernia
x
x
x
x
x
Terra Nova
x
x
x
x
x
White Rose
x
x
x
x
x
Exploration
x
x
x
x
x
Fisheries
x
x
x
Marine Transportation
1
Juveniles are young fish that have left the plankton and are often found closely associated with substrates.
2
Not applicable as garbage will be brought ashore.
3
There will not be any new onshore facilities. Existing infrastructure will be used.
4
Accidental spills were assessed in the original Terra Nova EIS (see Section 5.7 in Petro-Canada 1996a)
Groundfish
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
LGL Limited
Page 57
Effects assessment on Fish VEC.
Seismic Array
Key:
Magnitude:
0 = Negligible,
essentially no effect
1 = Low
2 = Medium
3 = High
Geographic Extent:
1 = < 1 km2
2 = 1-10 km2
3 = 11-100 km2
4 = 101-1000 km2
5 = 1001-10,000 km2
6 = > 10,000 km2
Ecological/
Socio-Cultural
and Economic
Context
Noise
Vessel
Reversibility
Air Emissions
Duration
Sanitary/Domestic
Waste
Frequency
Vessel Lights
Geographic
Extent
PROJECT
ACTIVITY
Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental
Effects
Potential Positive
(P) or Negative (N)
Mitigation
Environmental
Effect
Magnitude
Table 9.
-
0
1
1
1
R
2
-
0
1
1
1
R
2
-
0
1
1
1
R
2
-
0-1
1
1
1
R
2
Ramp up
1
4
1
1
R
2
Attraction (N)
Increased Food
(N/P)
Surface
Contaminants (N)
Disturbance (N)
Disturbance (N)
Physical Effects (N)
Frequency:
1 = < 11 events/yr
2 = 11-50 events/yr
3 = 51-100 events/yr
4 = 101-200 events/yr
5 = > 200 events/yr
6 = continuous
Reversibility:
R = Reversible
I = Irreversible
(refers to population)
Duration:
1 = < 1 month
2 = 1-12 months
3 = 13-36 months
4 = 37-72 months
5 = > 72 months
Ecological/Socio-cultural and Economic Context:
1 = Relatively pristine area or area not adversely affected by human activity
2 = Evidence of existing adverse effects
LGL Limited
Page 58
Table 10.
Significance of predicted residual environmental effects on the fish VEC.
PROJECT ACTIVITY
Vessel Lights
Sanitary/Domestic Wastes
Air Emissions
Noise
Vessel
Seismic Array
Significance Rating Level of Confidence
Likelihood
Significance of Predicted Residual
Probability of
Scientific
Environmental Effects
Occurrence
Certainty
NS
3
NS
3
NS
3
NS
NS
Key:
Residual environmental Effect Rating:
S
= Significant Negative Environmental Effect
NS = Not-significant Negative Environmental
Effect
P
= Positive Environmental Effect
Significance is defined as a medium or high
magnitude (2 or 3 rating) and duration greater
than 1 year (3 or greater rating) and geographic
extent >100 km2 (4 or greater rating).
3
3
-
-
Probability of Occurrence: based on professional judgment:
1 =
Low Probability of Occurrence
2 =
Medium Probability of Occurrence
3 =
High Probability of Occurrence
Scientific Certainty: based on scientific information and statistical
analysis or professional judgment:
1
= Low Level of Confidence
2
= Medium Level of Confidence
3
= High Level of Confidence
Level of Confidence: based on professional judgment:
1 = Low Level of Confidence
2 = Medium Level of Confidence
3 = High Level of Confidence
SARA Species.—The fish VEC was defined in a previous section as including four of the five fish
species presently listed under SARA; northern wolffish, spotted wolffish, Atlantic wolffish, and Atlantic
cod. Northern and spotted wolffish are listed as ‘threatened’ on Schedule 1, Atlantic wolffish as ‘special
concern’ on Schedule 1, and Atlantic cod as ‘special concern’ on Schedule 3. The fifth fish species
referred to above is Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the Inner Bay of Fundy. It is uncertain if this
population is relevant to this update. As indicated above, the physical and disturbance (behavioural)
effects of the proposed VSP survey on these SARA species are assessed as not significant.
5.3.2
Commercial Fishery
Any effect on the behaviour of fish and invertebrates could potentially affect the relevant commercial
fisheries in terms of catch rate. If fish and invertebrates temporarily move out of an area or become
inactive in response to underwater sound, then subsequent catches would most probably be affected.
The potential of such impact could be reduced by good communications with fishers before and during
the Project.
As with all vessel traffic on the Grand Banks, there is some potential for the project vessel to interfere
with fixed-fishing gear while in transit. However, the potential of conflict will be reduced by good
LGL Limited
Page 59
communications with fishers before and during the Project. Any effects such as gear damage that can be
attributed to the Project will be reduced to negligible by compensation for damaged or lost fishing gear.
Potential interactions between the Project and the commercial fishery VEC (includes DFO research
surveys) are shown in Table 11.
Table 11.
Potential interactions between the Project and Commercial Fishery VEC.
Valued Environmental Component: Commercial Fishery
PROJECT ACTIVITIES
Catch Success
Gear Conflict
Research Surveys
Vessel Lights
x
x
Air Emissions
Garbage (N/A)
Noise
Vessel
x
Seismic Array
x
Vessel Activities
Physical presence of vessel and
x
x
VSP equipment
Accidental Spills1
x
x
Exploration
x
x
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
The chief sources for potential impacts of the Project on the commercial fisheries would be related to (1)
changes in catch rates resulting from sound-induced behavioural changes (scaring) of fish, (2)
interference with fishing activities - particularly fixed gear - owing to gear or vessel conflicts, or (3) as a
result of effects on stock assessments and DFO research, which is used, among other purposes, for
setting fishing quotas or exploring new fisheries. [Impacts related to physical effects on fish and
invertebrates are not discussed here as they were assessed in previous sections, and predicted to be not
significant.]
There is typically minimal commercial harvesting within the proposed Project Area. Given the small
spatial and temporal footprint of the proposed Project, there will be minimal conflict between the
commercial fisheries and the Project. Mitigations such as advisories will lessen the potential for effects
and a compensation program for gear loss will lessen any potential effects to negligible. The primary
commercial fishery gear type used in the area is the fixed-gear crab pot.
The proposed VSP survey is predicted to have negligible to low disturbance (behavioural) effects on the
commercial fishery VEC over a duration of <1 month in an area 101-1,000 km2 (Table 12). Therefore,
any disturbance (behavioural) effects of the Project on the commercial fishery VEC (and research
surveys) would be not significant (Table 13).
LGL Limited
Page 60
5.4
Potential Effects on Seabirds
Typically, seabirds have not been species of concern in environmental assessments of VSP surveys,
because seabirds in general do not appear to be particularly sensitive to underwater sound and they do
not appear to use sound for feeding. Nonetheless, some concern has been expressed recently by
Environment Canada that some species such as murres may be more sensitive to underwater sound
because of the amount of time they spend underwater. Other potential issues include seabird stranding
(particularly petrels) onboard vessels at night or during foggy conditions.
Potential interactions between the Project and seabird VECs are shown in Table 14. The effects
assessment is shown in Table 15. Murres are potentially the most sensitive group to underwater sound
because of their time spent underwater. Murres and shearwaters may be the most sensitive bird species
for the Project, the former because of its feeding habits, spending large amounts on and under the water,
and the latter because of their relatively large numbers in the Project Area during periods when VSP
surveys are likely to be conducted (i.e., summer-early fall). Petrels also have some sensitivity to the
Project if they are attracted to the survey vessel and become stranded but the numbers involved for the
duration of a VSP survey would be low. It is unlikely that the Ivory Gull will occur in a Project Area
and its feeding strategy would not expose it for long periods of time to underwater sound.
Most effects of the Project on seabirds will be negligible (Table 15) because available information
(albeit limited for seismic sound) for the most part suggests that birds are not particularly sensitive to
underwater sound. Some petrels could be affected if they become attracted to and then stranded on the
ship, but mitigation/handling methods should reduce or eliminate mortalities. In addition, lighting on
the survey ship at night and in poor weather conditions will be reduced as much as possible.
Furthermore, there is no streamer flotation liquid associated with this project. Thus, the number of birds
affected by the Project should be quite low and thus any effects (including those on Ivory Gulls) will be
not significant (Table 16).
5.5
Potential Effects on Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles
Documents such as Davis et al. (1998: pages 90-99 and 142-150), Moulton et al. (2003: section 8) and
Lawson et al. (2000: sections 5 and 6) provide a good overview of the effects of seismic sounds on
marine mammals. Little is known about the effects of seismic sounds on sea turtles. This section
contains an overview of the literature on the effects of airgun sounds (typically from large arrays used in
2-D or 3-D seismic programs) on marine mammals and sea turtles. It is important to note that the each
VSP survey (maximum of two per year) proposed by Petro-Canada program will involve only 8-36
hours of data acquisition in a small area with a relatively small airgun array. The types of effects
considered here are (1) masking, (2) disturbance, and (3) potential hearing impairment and physical
effects.
LGL Limited
Page 61
Effects assessment on Commercial Fishery VEC.
Ecological/
Socio-Cultural
and Economic
Context
Avoidance,
Communications
Reversibility
Behavioural Response
(N/P)
Duration
Increased Food (N/P)
Frequency
Sanitary/Domestic
Waste
Noise
Seismic Array Vessel
Geographic
Extent
PROJECT
ACTIVITY
Evaluation Criteria for Assessing
Mitigation
Potential Positive (P) or
Negative (N)
Environmental Effect
Magnitude
Table 12.
0
1
1
1
R
2
1
4
1
1
R
2
1
1
R
2
Vessel Activities
Physical presence of
Gear conflict and damage Avoidance, SPOC,
1-2
01
vessel and VSP
(N)
Compensation plan
equipment
Key:
Magnitude:
Frequency:
Reversibility:
0 = Negligible,
1 = < 11 events/yr
R = Reversible
2 = 11-50 events/yr
I = Irreversible
1 = Low
2 = Medium
4 = 101-200 events/yr
3 = High
5 = > 200 events/yr
6 = continuous
Geographic Extent:
1 = < 1 km2
2 = 1-10 km2
3 = 11-100 km2
4 = 101-1000 km2
5 = 1001-10,000 km2
6 = > 10,000 km2
1
Duration:
1 = < 1 month
2 = 1-12 months
3 = 13-36 months
4 = 37-72 months
5 = > 72 months
1 = Relatively pristine area or area not affected by human activity
2 = Evidence of existing effects
This is considered negligible since, if a conflict occurs, compensation will eliminate any economic impact.
LGL Limited
Page 62
Table 13.
Significance of predicted residual environmental effects on the commercial fishery VEC.
PROJECT ACTIVITY
Air Emissions
Noise
Seismic Array Vessel
Vessel Activities
Physical presence of vessel and
VSP equipment
Likelihood
Probability of
Scientific
Occurrence
Certainty
NS
3
NS
3
NS
3
-
-
NS
3
-
-
Key:
S
Effect
P
1 =
2 =
3 =
1
2
3
Table 14.
Potential interactions between the Project and seabird, sea turtle and marine mammal VECs.
PROJECT ACTIVITY
Seabirds
Sea Turtles
Marine Mammals
x
x
Vessel Lights
x
x
x
x
x
x
Air Emissions
Garbage (N/A)
Noise
Vessel
x
x
x
Seismic Array
x
x
x
Shore Facilities (N/A)
Accidental Spills (N/A)1
x
x
x
Hibernia
x
x
x
Terra Nova
x
x
x
White Rose
x
x
x
Exploration
x
x
x
Fisheries
x
x
x
1
LGL Limited
Page 63
Table 15.
Effects assessment on seabird VEC.
Valued Environmental Component: Seabirds
Potential Positive (P) or
Negative (N)
Mitigation
Magnitude
Geographic
Extent
Frequency
Duration
Reversibility
Ecological/
Socio-Cultural
and Economic
Context
Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects
Attraction (N)
Release Program,
minimize
lighting
0-1
1
1
1
R
2
Sanitary/Domestic
Waste
-
0-1
1
1
1
R
2
Air Emissions
Surface Contaminants
(N)
-
0
1
1
1
R
2
Disturbance (N)
Avoid
concentrations
0-1
1
1
1
R
2
Disturbance (N)
Ramp up
1
2-3
1
1
R
2
PROJECT ACTIVITY
Vessel Lights
Noise
Vessel
Seismic Array
Key:
Magnitude:
0 = Negligible,
1 = Low
2 = Medium
3 = High
Geographic Extent:
1 = < 1 km2
2 = 1-10 km2
3 = 11-100 km2
4 = 101-1000 km2
5 = 1001-10,000 km2
6 = > 10,000 km2
Frequency:
1 = < 11 events/yr
2 = 11-50 events/yr
4 = 101-200 events/yr
5 = > 200 events/yr
6 = continuous
Reversibility:
R = Reversible
I = Irreversible
Duration:
1 = < 1 month
2 = 1-12 months
3 = 13-36 months
4 = 37-72 months
5 = > 72 months
LGL Limited
Page 64
Table 16.
Significance of predicted residual environmental effects on the seabird VEC.
PROJECT ACTIVITY
Vessel Lights
Air Emissions
Noise
Vessel
Seismic Array
Valued Environmental Component: Seabirds
Likelihood
Probability of
Scientific
Occurrence
Certainty
NS
3
NS
3
NS
3
NS
NS
Key:
S
Effect
P
3
3
-
-
1 =
2 =
3 =
1
2
3
(1) Masking Effects of VSP Surveys
Masking effects on marine mammal calls and other natural sounds are expected to be limited. Seismic
sounds are short pulses occurring for less than 1-sec every 20 or thereabouts. Some whales are known
to continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses. Their calls can be heard between the seismic
pulses (e.g., Richardson et al. 1986; McDonald et al. 1995; Greene et al. 1999). Although there has been
one report that sperm whales cease calling when exposed to pulses from a very distant seismic ship
(Bowles et al. 1994), more recent studies reported that sperm whales continued calling in the presence of
seismic pulses (Madsen et al. 2002). Masking effects of seismic pulses are expected to be negligible in
the case of the smaller odontocete cetaceans, given the intermittent nature of seismic pulses plus the fact
that sounds important to them are predominantly at much higher frequencies than are airgun sounds.
Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by airgun arrays is at low frequencies, with strongest
spectrum levels below 200 Hz and considerably lower spectrum levels above 1,000 Hz. These
frequencies are mainly used by mysticetes, but not by odontocetes or pinnipeds. An industrial sound
source will reduce the effective communication or echolocation distance only if its frequency is close to
that of the cetacean signal. If little or no overlap occurs between the industrial noise and the frequencies
used, as in the case of many marine mammals vs. airgun sounds, communication and echolocation are
not expected to be disrupted. Furthermore, the discontinuous nature of seismic sounds makes significant
masking effects unlikely even for mysticetes.
LGL Limited
Page 65
Little is known about sea turtle hearing or of the importance of hearing to sea turtles. Hearing may play
a role in sea turtle navigation. However, recent studies suggest that visual, wave, and magnetic cues are
the main navigational cues used by sea turtles, at least by hatchlings and juveniles (Lohmann et al. 1997,
2001; Lohmann and Lohmann 1998). Therefore, masking is probably not relevant to sea turtles. Even if
acoustic signals were important to sea turtles, their hearing is best at frequencies slightly higher (250 to
700 Hz—see Moulton and Richardson (2000) for a review) than frequencies where most airgun sounds
(<200 Hz) are produced, although their hearing extends down to the airgun frequencies. If sea turtles do
rely on acoustical cues from the environment, the wide spacing between seismic pulses would permit
them to receive these cues, even in the presence of seismic activities.
Thus, masking is unlikely to be a significant issue for either marine mammals or sea turtles exposed to
the pulsed sounds from VSP surveys.
(2) Disturbance by VSP Surveys
Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behaviour, more conspicuous
dramatic changes in activities, and displacement. However, information is lacking for many species.
Detailed studies have been done on humpback, gray and bowhead whales, and on ringed seals reactions
to seismic pulses. Less detailed data on responses to seismic sound are available for some other species
of baleen whales, sperm whales, and small toothed whales.
Baleen Whales.—Humpback, gray, and bowhead whales reacted to noise pulses from marine seismic
exploration by deviating from their normal migration route and/or interrupting their feeding and moving
away (e.g., Malme et al. 1984, 1985, 1988; Richardson et al. 1986, 1995, 1999; Ljungblad et al. 1988;
Richardson and Malme 1993; McCauley et al. 1998, 2000a; Miller et al. 1999). Fin and blue whales
also show some behavioural reactions to airgun array noise (McDonald et al. 1995; Stone 2003). Prior
to the late 1990s, it was thought that bowhead whales, gray whales, and humpback whales all begin to
show strong avoidance reactions to seismic pulses at received levels of about 160 to 170 dB re 1 µPa
rms, but that subtle behavioural changes sometimes become evident at somewhat lower received levels.
Recent studies have shown that some species of baleen whales may show strong avoidance at received
levels somewhat lower than 160–170 dB re 1 µPa rms (e.g., Miller et al. 1999). The observed avoidance
reactions involved movement away from feeding locations or statistically significant deviations in the
whales’ direction of swimming and/or migration corridor as they approached or passed the sound
sources. In the case of the migrating whales, the observed changes in behaviour appeared to be of little
or no biological consequence to the animals—they simply avoided the sound source by displacing their
migration route to varying degrees, but within the natural boundaries of the migration corridors.
Blue, sei, fin, and minke whales have been reported in areas ensonified by airgun array pulses (Moulton
and Miller 2004; Moulton et al. 2005, 2006a,b; Lang et al. 2006). Sightings by observers on seismic
vessels off the U.K. from 1997–2000 suggest that, at times of good sightability, numbers of rorquals seen
are similar when airgun arrays are active and inactive (Stone 2003). Although individual species did not
show any significant displacement in relation to seismic activity, all baleen whales combined were found
to remain significantly farther from the airgun arrays during air releases compared with periods without air
LGL Limited
Page 66
releases (Stone 2003). Baleen whale pods sighted from the ship were found to be at a median distance of
about 1.6 km from the array during seismic periods and 1.0 km during non-seismic periods (Stone 2003).
Monitoring program results from Atlantic Canada seismic surveys have yielded variable results with
sighting rates of baleen whales higher during non-seismic vs. seismic periods on the Scotian Slope and
Orphan Basin (Moulton and Miller 2004; Moulton et al. 2006b), lower during non-seismic vs. seismic
periods in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin (Lang et al. 2006), and similar during both periods in the Laurentian
Sub-basin (Moulton et al. 2006a). Also, there was no consistent trend in the closest point of approach of
baleen whales during non-seismic vs. seismic periods.
Toothed Whales.—Little systematic information is available about reactions of toothed whales to noise
pulses. Dolphins and porpoises are often seen by observers on active seismic vessels (Duncan 1985;
Arnold 1996; Stone 2003: Moulton et al. 2005, 2006a,b; Lang et al. 2006), occasionally at close
distances (e.g., bow riding). However, some studies, especially near the U.K., show localized avoidance
(Stone 2003). In contrast, recent studies show little evidence of reactions by sperm whales to airgun
pulses (McCall Howard 1999; Madsen et al. 2002; Stone 2003; Jochens and Biggs 2003; Mate 2003),
contrary to earlier indications (Bowles et al. 1994; Mate et al. 1994). There are no specific data on
responses of beaked whales to seismic surveys; there is increasing evidence that some beaked whales
may strand after exposure to strong noise from high powered military sonars. Whether they ever do so
in response to seismic survey noise is unknown (but much less likely).
Pinnipeds.—Few studies of the reactions of pinnipeds to noise from open-water seismic exploration
have been published (for review, see Richardson et al. 1995). Visual monitoring from seismic vessels has
shown only slight (if any) avoidance of airguns by pinnipeds, and only slight (if any) changes in behaviour
(Harris et al. 2001; Moulton and Lawson 2002). These studies show that pinnipeds frequently do not
avoid the area within a few hundred meters of an operating airgun array. However, initial telemetry work
suggests that avoidance and other behavioural reactions may be stronger than evident to date from visual
studies (Thompson et al. 1998).
Sea Turtles.—The limited available data indicate that sea turtles will hear airgun sounds. Based on
available data, it is likely that sea turtles will exhibit behavioural changes and/or avoidance within an
area of unknown size near a VSP vessel (e.g., McCauley et al. 2000b; Holst et al. 2005a). A recent
seismic monitoring study off Central America (Holst et al. 2005a) indicated that sea turtles (primarily
Olive ridley) were observed closer to a small airgun array when it was inactive vs. active. However,
results from a monitoring program in the southern Gulf of Mexico (Holst et al. 2005b) found no
difference in sea turtle sighting distances relative to the activity status of a large airgun array. Seismic
operations in or near areas where turtles concentrate are likely to have the greatest impact. There are no
specific data that demonstrate the consequences to sea turtles if seismic operations do occur in important
areas at important times of year. The proposed project will occur outside of the peak nesting period, and
in an area very distant from breeding habitat or foraging sites. Thus, it is unlikely that there will be any
prolonged or significant disturbance effects on individuals or the population.
LGL Limited
Page 67
(4) Hearing Impairment and Physical Effects
Temporary or permanent hearing impairment is a possibility when marine mammals are exposed to very
strong sounds. The minimum sound level necessary to cause permanent hearing impairment is higher,
by a variable and generally unknown amount, than the level that induces barely-detectable Temporary
Threshold Shift (TTS). The level associated with the onset of TTS is often considered to be a level
below which there is no danger of permanent damage. Current National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) policy, which has been adopted in some areas of Canada, regarding exposure of marine
mammals to high-level sounds is that cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to impulsive
sounds exceeding 180 and 190 dB re 1 µPa (rms), respectively (NMFS 2000). [These criteria are
currently under review in the U.S.]
Non-auditory physical effects may also occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater pulsed
sound. Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that might (in theory) occur
include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or
tissue damage. It is possible that some marine mammal species (i.e., beaked whales) may be especially
susceptible to injury and/or stranding when exposed to strong pulsed sounds.
Very little is known about the potential for VSP survey sounds to cause auditory impairment or physical
effects in marine mammals or sea turtles. Available data suggest that such effects, if they occur at all,
would be limited to short distances. However, the available data do not allow for meaningful
quantitative predictions of the numbers (if any) of marine mammals or sea turtles that might be affected
in these ways. Marine mammals that show behavioural avoidance of seismic vessels, including most
baleen whales, some odontocetes, and some pinnipeds, are unlikely to incur auditory impairment or
physical effects.
Potential interactions between marine mammals, sea turtles and the Project are shown in Table 14. The
VSP project proposed by Petro-Canada is of short duration (8-36 hours of data acquisition per survey)
and will occur in a small area (up to 5 km from the wellhead for Walkaway VSP). Relative to a fullscale 2-D or 3-D seismic program, any effects on VECs will be minimal as source levels are lower and
the duration seismic sound is emitted in the water column is much reduced.
5.5.1
Marine Mammals
Mysticetes
There is little potential for the proposed VSP program to cause hearing impairment and physical effects
on mysticetes or baleen whales given that baleen whales would likely exhibit localized avoidance from
the survey ship and sound source. Available evidence indicates that baleen whales are able to hear the
seismic array. If some whales did experience hearing impairments, the effects would likely be
“temporary” (minutes to hours to days in duration). The likelihood of baleen whales experiencing
hearing impairment or other physical effects is reduced by implementing mitigation measures including
ramp up of the array, delay of start up of the array for baleen whales within a 500 m safety zone, and for
LGL Limited
Page 68
the endangered blue whale shutdown of the airgun array anytime this species enters the safety zone.
With mitigation measures in place, the proposed VSP program is predicted to have negligible to low
physical impacts on baleen whales, over a duration of <1 month, in an area <1 km2 (Table 17).
Therefore, hearing impairment and physical impacts of VSP surveys on baleen whales (including the
endangered blue whale) would be not significant (Table 18).
With the implementation of the mitigation measure of ramping up the airgun array and implementation
of a safety zone, disturbance effects on baleen whales (including endangered species, i.e., blue whale)
are predicted to be negligible to low, over a duration of <1 month, in an area of <1 km2 to 101-1000 km2
(Table 17). Therefore, impacts related to disturbance, are judged to be not significant for baleen whales
(Table 18).
Odontocetes
There is little potential for the VSP program to cause physical effects on odontocetes (toothed whales,
dolphins, porpoises) given that odontocetes would likely exhibit localized avoidance from the survey
ship and sound source and toothed whales are likely most sensitive to higher frequency sound. If some
odontocetes did experience hearing impairments, the effects would likely be “temporary” (minutes to
hours to days in duration). The likelihood of odontocetes experiencing hearing impairment or other
physical effects is reduced by implementing mitigation measures including ramp up of the array and
delay of start up of the array for odontocetes within a 500 m safety zone. With mitigation measures in
place, the proposed VSP program is predicted to have negligible to low physical impacts on odontocetes,
over a duration of <1 month, in an area <1 km2 (Table 17). Therefore, hearing impairment and physical
impacts of VSP surveys on odontocetes are predicted to be not significant (Table 18).
With the implementation of the mitigation measure of ramping up the airgun array and delaying start-up
for odontocetes sighted within the 500 m safety zone, disturbance effects on odontocetes are predicted to
be negligible to low, over a duration of <1 month, in an area of <1 km2 to 101-1000 km2 (Table 17).
Therefore, impacts related to disturbance, are judged to be not significant for odontocetes (Table 18).
Pinnipeds
There is little potential for the VSP program to cause hearing impairment or physical effects on seals
given that few seals are expected to occur in the area during the program. Also, any seals in the area
would likely exhibit localized avoidance from the survey ship and sound source. If some seals did
experience hearing impairments, the effects would likely be “temporary” (minutes to hours to days in
duration).
LGL Limited
Page 69
Table 17.
Effects assessment on marine mammal and sea turtle VECs.
Valued Environmental Component: Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles
Duration
Reversibility
Ecological/
Socio-Cultural
and Economic
Context
Attraction (N)
Minimize
lighting
0-1
1
1
1
R
2
Sanitary/Domestic
Waste
-
0-1
1
1
1
R
2
Air Emissions
Surface Contaminants
(N)
-
0
1
1
1
R
2
Ramp up,
safety zone for
ramp up,
shutdowns for
endangered
MM
0-1
1
1
1
R
2
1
1-4
1
1
R
2
Vessel Lights
Geographic
Extent
Mitigation
PROJECT ACTIVITY
Magnitude
Potential Positive (P)
or Negative (N)
Frequency
Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Environmental Effects
Noise
Vessel
Seismic Array
Key:
Magnitude:
0 = Negligible,
1 = Low
2 = Medium
3 = High
Geographic Extent:
1 = < 1 km2
2 = 1-10 km2
3 = 11-100 km2
4 = 101-1000 km2
5 = 1001-10,000 km2
6 = > 10,000 km2
Disturbance (N)
Disturbance (N)
Frequency:
1 = < 11 events/yr
2 = 11-50 events/yr
4 = 101-200 events/yr
5 = > 200 events/yr
6 = continuous
Reversibility:
R = Reversible
I = Irreversible
Duration:
1 = < 1 month
2 = 1-12 months
3 = 13-36 months
4 = 37-72 months
5 = > 72 months
LGL Limited
Page 70
Table 18.
Significance of predicted residual environmental effects on the marine mammal and sea turtle VECs.
Valued Environmental Component: Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles
Likelihood
Probability of
Scientific
PROJECT ACTIVITY
Occurrence
Certainty
NS
3
Vessel Lights
NS
3
NS
3
Air Emissions
Noise
Vessel
NS
3
Seismic Array
NS
3
Key:
S
Effect
P
1 =
2 =
3 =
1
2
3
The likelihood of seals experiencing hearing impairment or other physical effects is reduced by
implementing mitigation measures including ramp up of the array and delay of start up of the array for
seals within a 500 m safety zone. With mitigation measures in place, the proposed VSP program is
predicted to have negligible to low physical impacts on seals, over a duration of <1 month, in an area <1
km2 (Table 17). Therefore, hearing impairment and physical impacts of VSP surveys on seals would be
not significant (Table 18).
With the implementation of the mitigation measure of ramping up the airgun array and delaying start-up
for seals sighted within the 500 m safety zone, disturbance effects on seals are predicted to be negligible
to low, over a duration of <1 month, in an area of <1 km2 to 101-1000 km2 (Table 17). Therefore,
impacts related to disturbance, are judged to be not significant for seals (Table 18).
5.5.2
Sea Turtles
There is little potential for the proposed VSP program to cause hearing impairment or physical effects
on sea turtles given that few sea turtles are expected to occur in the area during the program. Also, any
sea turtles in the area would likely exhibit localized avoidance from the survey ship and sound sources.
If some sea turtles did experience hearing impairments, the effects would likely be “temporary”. The
likelihood of sea turtles experiencing hearing impairment or other physical effects is reduced by
LGL Limited
Page 71
implementing mitigation measures including ramp up of the array, delay of start up of the array for sea
turtles within a 500 m safety zone, and for the endangered leatherback sea turtle shutdown of the airgun
array anytime this species enters the safety zone. With mitigation measures in place, the proposed VSP
program is predicted to have negligible to low physical impacts on sea turtles (including leatherback
turtles), over a duration of <1 month, in an area <1 km2 (Table 17). Therefore, hearing impairment and
physical impacts of VSP surveys on sea turtles would be not significant (Table 18).
With the implementation of the mitigation measure of ramping up the airgun array and implementation
of a safety zone, disturbance effects on sea turtles (including endangered species, i.e., leatherback sea
turtle) are predicted to be negligible to low, over a duration of <1 month, in an area of <1 km2 to 1011000 km2 (Table 17). Also, the survey site is not located in an important habitat area for turtles (i.e.,
breeding or feeding). Therefore, impacts related to disturbance, are judged to be not significant for sea
turtles (Table 18).
5.6
Potential Effects on Species at Risk
Species considered as threatened or endangered under Schedule 1 of SARA were assessed under their
specific VEC categories. To summarize, northern and spotted wolffish normally occur in much deeper
water than the Project Area and thus there is little or no chance of interaction and thus no effect of the
Project on these species of wolffish.
Leatherback sea turtles may occur occasionally in the Project Area, and few turtles are expected in the
Project Area. The Project Area is not considered an important feeding (or breeding) area for this
species. Available evidence (albeit limited) suggests that sea turtles exhibit at least localized avoidance
of seismic arrays. There are no published reports of VSP activities significantly affecting leatherbacks;
no significant effect of the VSP program is predicted.
As previously stated, there are no seabirds on SARA Schedule I that are likely to occur in the Project
Area. Ivory Gull will likely become listed in the future but this species is highly associated with sea ice
and would naturally be extremely rare in the Project Area.
Blue whale can be considered uncommon in the Project Area and thus potential for interaction with the
Project is small. The blue whale is a baleen whale and it is anticipated that any disturbance effects on
this species would be similar to those predicted for other baleen whales, namely no significant effects.
5.7
Potential Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects are addressed for activities within the Project and for activities from other oil and gas
projects offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.
LGL Limited
Page 72
5.7.1
Cumulative Effects within the Project
Any potential effects from a VSP program are related to underwater noise, presence of a supply boat (if
one is in fact used), and accidental events. The presence of a supply boat and accidental events are
captured within the Terra Nova Development EIS and are not considered here. This is valid because
these activities are well within the original Project Description and EIS. It should be noted that a VSP
program does not normally use streamers, which in a typical seismic program would be filled with
Isopar (a kerosene-like petroleum product not that different from diesel oil, which was covered in the
EIS). Thus, underwater noise becomes the primary issue associated with a VSP program.
The sound from a VSP airgun array will be additive to other underwater sounds produced by the Terra
Nova Project from supply vessel and tanker propulsion systems, drill rig machinery, and FPSO stationholding thrusters. To our knowledge there are no baseline data on the ambient underwater sounds
(natural and anthropogenic) in the Terra Nova Development area. However, it should be noted that the
temporal and spatial boundaries for a VSP survey are very limited relative to the Project as a whole. For
example, the time frame of a VSP survey is short (eight to 36 hours), and there are a limited number of
surveys (normally one per well; thus there may be on the order of another six surveys, depending upon
the number of additional wells, over the life of the Terra Nova Development). In addition, the
potentially affected area from any particular survey is likewise relatively small compared to a typical
exploratory seismic survey because the array is normally smaller and less powerful. Thus, no significant
cumulative effects will result from the VSP surveys. The confidence level in the prediction is high as
confirmed by similar predictions of non-significant cumulative effects for much larger area seismic
programs using much larger and more powerful arrays over a much longer period of time (e.g., Orphan
Basin 3-D 2004-2005 surveys, Laurentian Sub-basin 2004 2D and 2005 3D surveys).
5.7.2
Cumulative Effects with Other Oil and Gas Activities
In addition to cumulative effects within a project, it is necessary to assess cumulative effects with other
projects in the region. Based upon an examination of the C-NLOPB website registry of projects
undergoing, or recently completed, and Petro-Canada’s general knowledge of the availability of seismic
vessels and drill rigs, the following levels of activity in eastern Newfoundland and Labrador waters can
be expected over the next several years.
•
•
•
•
Labrador Shelf – one 2D or 3D seismic survey per year
Orphan Basin –one 3D or CSEM survey and one exploratory well per year
NE Grand Banks—one 3D survey and three VSP surveys (one each for Hibernia, Terra
Nova, and White Rose); White Rose glory hole excavation; two or three wells drilled per
year using a semi-submersible and a jack-up
SW Grand Banks/Laurentian Sub-basin—one 3D program and one drilling program per year
The above programs will have support vessels, typically offshore supply tugs.
LGL Limited
Page 73
As discussed above, there are no broad-scale, broadband underwater sound measurements available for
the regional area and thus one can only provide qualitative predictions of cumulative effects of an
additional sound source from the VSP. The proposed Terra Nova VSP program will add some
additional sound to the background sound from larger scale seismic programs, drill rig machinery, a
dredge operating at White Rose, and seismic and support vessels. Other noise sources include those
from marine transportation, fishing vessels, military ships, and private yachts. Again, because the VSP
surveys are low magnitude (relative to large seismic), short duration (up to 36 h), low frequency
(perhaps one or two per year), little cumulative effects are predicted from this source. Thus, there will
be no significant cumulative effects between the Terra Nova VSP and other oil and gas activities (or
other general marine activities).
LGL Limited
Page 74
6.0 Mitigations and Follow-up
Project mitigations have been detailed in the various individual sections of the EA and are summarized
below and in Table 19. Petro-Canada and its contractors will adhere to mitigations detailed in Appendix
II of the C-NLOPB Geophysical, Geological, Environmental and Geotechnical Program Guidelines
(April 2004).
Table 19.
Summary of mitigation measures for the proposed VSP Program in the Terra Nova Development.
Potential Effects
Interference with fishing vessels
Fishing gear damage
Interference with shipping
Interference with DFO research vessels
Temporary or permanent hearing damage to marine animals
Disturbance to Species at Risk or other key habitats
Injury to stranded seabirds
Primary Mitigations
Use of Terra Nova Precautionary and Safety Zones as
described in the “Vessel Traffic Management Plan”
(Document No. TN-PE-MR04-X00-005).
(Document No. TN-PE-MR04-X00-005). A compensation
program as per the “Fisheries Liaison and Compensation
Program” (Document No. TN-IM-EV03-X00-010).
(Document No. TN-PE-MR04-X00-005).
Use of Terra Nova Safety Zone as described in the “Vessel
Traffic Management Plan” (Document No. TN-PE-MR04X00-005). Good communication and planning.
Delay start-up if marine mammals or sea turtles are within
500 m; ramp-up of airguns; use of environmental observer
Geographic and temporal avoidance, if possible; shut-down
if blue whale or North Atlantic right whale or leatherback
turtle sighted within 500-m safety zone
Handling and release protocols (as per Chardine and
Williams n.d.)
Petro-Canada’s monitoring and mitigation approach for marine mammals and sea turtles involves the
shutdown of any active airguns if a threatened or endangered marine mammal or turtle (as listed by
SARA) is sighted within or about to enter the 500 m safety zone. In addition, Petro-Canada will employ
ramp up of the airgun array and this procedure will be delayed if any marine mammal or sea turtle is
sighted within the 500 m safety zone during the 30 min prior to ramp up. More specifically, for marine
mammals and sea turtles:
For 30 minutes prior to the commencement of ramping up of the seismic array
•
an Environmental Observer (EO) will maintain a watch for marine mammals and sea turtles
LGL Limited
Page 75
•
if any marine mammal or sea turtle species comes within the 500 meter zone3 during this
period ramp up will not commence until the animal has left the zone (or the EO has not seen
the marine mammal or sea turtle for 20 minutes)
During the ramp up of the array
•
the EO will maintain a watch for marine mammals and sea turtles and if an endangered
species (blue whale, North Atlantic right whale, or leatherback sea turtle) enters the 500
meter zone, ramp up will be halted until the animal leaves the zone (or the EO has not seen
the marine mammal or sea turtle for 20 minutes)
•
ramp up will take a minimum of 30 minutes starting with the smallest airgun and gradually
adding airguns at evenly spaced intervals, increasing the volume over a 30-minute period
until all airguns are active.
•
these ramp up procedures will be followed at night and in periods of negligible visibility (i.e.,
fog) with the exception that the EO will not be able to perform the 30 minute watch prior to
ramp up at night
•
note that ramp up procedures should be implemented when the airguns have been off for 20
or more minutes
During periods of data acquisition (i.e., line shooting) of the array
•
during data acquisition (or periods of seismic testing), if the EO sights a blue whale, North
Atlantic right whale, or leatherback turtle within the 500 meter zone the airgun array will be
shut down until the animal has left the zone or the EO has not seen the blue or right whale, or
leatherback turtle for 20 minutes
Any dead or distressed marine mammal or turtle will be reported immediately to the C-NLOPB and
DFO. A follow-up program will not be implemented for the VSP surveys but a monitoring report will
be submitted to the C-NLOPB which details the numbers, species, and behavioural observations of
marine mammals and sea turtles recorded during the monitoring program.
Any seabirds (most likely Leach’s Storm-Petrel) that become stranded on the vessel will be released
using the mitigation methods consistent with The Leach’s Storm-Petrel: General Information and
Handling Instructions by U. Williams (Petro-Canada) and J. Chardine (CWS) (n.d.). Stranded birds will
be handled by a designated crew member. Lighting aboard the survey vessel will be reduced (only when
it is safe to do so) at night to minimize the likelihood of seabirds stranding.
3
Observers will consider the safety zone to be 500 m from the bridge (location of the observer) not the center of
the array.
LGL Limited
Page 76
7.0
Conclusions
Given the present state of knowledge, the following conclusions can be drawn:
•
•
•
There are no recorded unusually large concentrations of species sensitive to sound, or
‘species at risk’ under SARA, in the Terra Nova Development and surrounding area.
The geographic extent, magnitude, and duration of the VSP activities will all be much less
than standard 2-D or 3-D seismic surveys.
Mitigation measures will be employed.
Considering the above three points, VSP activities at the Terra Nova Development will not result in any
significant effects on VECs assessed in this EA.
LGL Limited
Page 77
8.0 Acknowledgements
U. Williams and J. Evans of Petro-Canada provided information on Project Description sections of the
EA. At LGL, B. Buchanan, J. Christian, B. Mactavish and V. Moulton wrote various sections of the EA
and R. Martin was responsible for document production. S. Canning of Canning and Pitt conducted
consultations.
LGL Limited
Page 78
9.0 Literature Cited
Alling, A.K. and H.P. Whitehead. 1987. A preliminary study of the status of White-beaked Dolphins, Lagenorhynchus
albirostris, and other small cetaceans off the coast of Labrador. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 101: 131-135.
ALTRT. 2006. Recovery strategy for leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) in Atlantic Canada [proposed]. In: Species
at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series, Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Recovery Team, Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans
Canada. xx p.
Arnold, B.W. 1996. Visual monitoring of marine mammal activity during the Exxon 3-D seismic survey: Santa Ynez unit,
offshore California 9 November to 12 December 1995. Rep. by Impact Sciences Inc., San Diego, CA, for Exxon
Company, U.S.A., Thousand Oaks, CA. 20 p.
Astrup, J. and B. Møhl. 1993. Detection of intense ultrasound by the cod Gadus morhua. J. Exp. Biol. 182: 71-80.
Baillie, S.M., G.J. Robertson, F.K. Wiese and U.P. Williams. 2005. Seabird data collected by the Grand Banks offshore
hydrocarbon industry 1999-2002: results, limitations and suggestions for improvement. Canadian Wildlife Service
Technical Report Series No.434. Atlantic Region.
Benoit, D. and W. D. Bowen. 1990. Seasonal and geographic variation in the diet of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) in
eastern Canada. Can. Bull. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 222:215-226.
Best, P.B. 1993. Increase rates in severely depleted stocks of baleen whales. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 50:169-186.
Blaxter, J.H.S., J.A.B. Gray and E.J. Denton. 1981. Sound and startle responses in herring shoals. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K.
61: 851-869.
Bleakney, J.S. 1965. Reports of marine turtles from New England and Eastern Canada. Can. Field-Nat. 79: 120-128.
Booman, C., J. Dalen, H. Leivestad, A. Levsen, T. van der Meeren and K. Toklum. 1996. Effecter av luftkanonshyting på egg,
larver og yngel. Fisken og Havet 1996(3):1-83. (Norwegian with English summary).
Bowles, A.E., M. Smultea, B. Würsig, D.P. DeMaster and D. Palka. 1994. Relative abundance and behaviour of marine
mammals exposed to transmissions from the Heard Island Feasibility Test. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96:2469-2484.
Brander, K.M. 1994. Patterns of distribution, spawning, and growth in North Atlantic cod: the utility of inter-regional
comparisons. ICES J. Mar. Sci. Symp. 198: 406-413.
Brown, R.G.B. 1986. Revised atlas of eastern Canadian seabirds. 1. Shipboard surveys. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa.
111 p.
Buchanan, R.A., J. Christian, V. Moulton and B. Mactavish. 2004. Orphan 3-D Seismic Program, 2004-2006 environmental
assessment. LGL Report No. SA799. Prepared for Chevron Canada Resources and ExxonMobil. 209 p. + App.
Budelmann, B.U. 1992. Hearing in crustacea. In: (eds.) D.B. Webster, R.R. Fay, and A.N. Popper. The Evolutionary
Biology of Hearing. pp. 131-139.
Cairns, D.K., W.A. Montevecchi and W. Threlfall. 1989. Researcher's guide to Newfoundland seabird colonies. Second
edition. Memorial University of Newfoundland Occasional Papers in Biology, No. 14. 43 p.
Campana, S., L. Marks, W. Joyce, and S. Harley. 2001. Analytical assessment of the porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus)
population in the northwest Atlantic, with estimates of long-term sustainable yield. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Stock
Status Report 2001/067.
Canning and Pitt Associates, Inc. 2002. Husky Energy Lewis Hill & Grand Bank Geophysical Surveys (Fugro-Jacques Ltd),
Commercial Fisheries Assessment. 25 p.
Carr, A. 1986. Rips, FADS, and Little Loggerheads. BioScience 36: 92-100.
CEAA. 1994. Environmental Assessment Guidelines Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Ottawa.
Chardine, J.W. 2000. Census of Northern Gannet colonies in the Atlantic Region in 1999. Canadian Wildlife Service
Technical Report Series No. 361. Atlantic Region.
LGL Limited
Page 79
Chardine, J.W., G.J. Robertson, P.C. Ryan and B. Turner. 2003. Abundance and distribution of Common Murres breeding at
Funk Island, Newfoundland 1972 and 2000. Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report Series No. 404. Atlantic
Region.
Christian, J.R., A. Mathieu, D.H. Thomson, D. White and R.A. Buchanan. 2004. Effect of seismic energy on snow crab
(Chionoecetes opilio) 7 November 2003. Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 144. Calgary. 106 p.
C-NOPB and C-NSOPB. 2003. Joint guidelines respecting data acquisition and reporting for well, pool and field
evaluations in the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia offshore area. June 2003. Canada-Newfoundland Offshore
Petroleum Board, St. John’s, NL; Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, Halifax, NS. 46 p.
Cook, F.R. 1981. Status report on the Leatherback Turtle Dermochelys coriacea in Canada. Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 17 p.
Cook, F.R. 1984. Introduction to Canadian Amphibians and Reptiles. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National
Museums of Canada, Ottawa, ON. 200 p.
Coombs, S. and J.C. Montgomery. 1999. The enigmatic lateral line system. In: (eds.) R.R. Fay and A.N. Popper.
Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research. Springer-Verlag New York
Inc. pp. 319-362.
COSEWIC. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus in Canada.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 32 p.
COSEWIC. 2006. Database of species assessed by COSEWIC. http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchform_e.cfm
Dalen, J., E. Ona, A.V. Soldal and R. Saetre. 1996. Seismiske undersøkelser til havs: en vurdering av konsekvenser for fisk
og fiskerier [Seismic investigations at sea; an evaluation of consequences for fish and fisheries]. Fisken og Havet
1996:1-26. (in Norwegian, with an English summary - English translation not yet published).
Davis, R.A., D.H. Thomson and C.I. Malme. 1998. Environmental assessment of seismic exploration on the Scotian Shelf.
TA2205. Rep. by LGL Limited, King City, ON, for Mobil Oil Properties Ltd., Shell Canada Ltd., Imperial Oil Ltd.
and Canada/Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, Halifax, NS. 181 p.
Desportes, G. and R. Mouritsen. 1993. Preliminary results on the diet of Long-finned Pilot Whales off the Faroe Islands. Rep.
Int. Whal. Comm. (Special Issue 14): 305-324.
DeYoung, B. and G.A. Rose. 1993. On recruitment and distribution of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) off Newfoundland.
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50: 2729-2741.
DFO. 2000. Northwest Atlantic Harp Seals. DFO Science Stock Status Report E1-01 (2000).
DFO. 2004a. Proceedings of Species at Risk Atlantic Zonal Assessment Process-Determination of allowable harm for
spotted and northern wolfish, May 7, 2004, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. Can. Sci. Advis. Secret. Proc.
Ser. 2004/028.
DFO. 2004b. Allowable harm assessment for cusk in Atlantic Canada. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Stock Status Report
2004/044.
DFO. 2005a. Recovery assessment report on NAFO Subareas 3-6 porbeagle shark. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis.
Report 2005/043.
DFO. 2005b. Stock assessment report on NAFO Subareas 3-6 porbeagle shark. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis.
Report 2005/044.
DFO. 2006. Assessment of Newfoundland and Labrador snow crab. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2006/006.
Dufault, S., H. Whitehead and M. Dillon. 1999. An examination on the current knowledge on the stock structure of Sperm
Whales (Physeter macrocephalus) worldwide. J.Cetacean Res. Manage. 1: 1-10.
Duncan, P.M. 1985. Seismic sources in a marine environment. p. 56-88 In: Proc. Workshop on Effects of Explosives Use in
the Marine Environment, Jan. 1985, Halifax, N.S. Tech. Rep. 5. Can. Oil & Gas Lands Admin. Environ. Prot. Br.,
Ottawa, Ont. 398 p.
LGL Limited
Page 80
Dunning, D.J., Q.E. Ross, P. Geoghegan, J. Reichle, J.K. Menezes, and J.K. Watson. 1992. Alewives avoid high-frequency
sound. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 12: 407-416.
Dutton, P.H., B.W. Bowen, D.W. Owens, A. Barragan and S.K. Davis. 1999. Global phylogeography of the Leatherback
Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). J. Zool. (London) 248: 397-409.
Encalada, S.E., K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, J.C. Zurita, B. Schroeder, E. Possardt, C.J. Sears and B.W. Bowen. 1998.
Population structure of Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting colonies in the Atlantic and Mediterranean as
inferred from mitochondrial DNA control region sequences. Mar. Biol. 130: 567-575.
Engås, A, S. Løkkeborg, E. Ona and A.V. Soldal. 1996. Effects of seismic shooting on local abundance and catch rates of
cod (G. morhua) and haddock (M. aeglefinus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53(10):2238-2249.
Fay, R.R. and A.N. Popper. 1999. Hearing in fishes and amphibians: An introduction. In: (eds.) R.R. Fay and A.N. Popper.
Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research. Springer-Verlag New York
Inc. pp. 1-14. Hirst, A.G. and P.G. Rodhouse. 2000. Impacts of geophysical seismic surveying on fishing success.
Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 10:113-118.
Ernst, C.H., R.W. Barbour and J.E. Lovich (eds.). 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, DC. 578 p.
Falk-Petersen, I-B, T.K. Hansen, R. Fieler, and L.M. Sunde. 1999. Cultivation of the spotted wolffish Anarhichas minor
(Olafsen) – a new candidate for cold-water fish farming. Aquaculture Res. 30: 711-718.
Gambell, R. 1985. Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis lesson, 1828. p. 155-170. In: S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds.),
Handbook of Marine Mammals. Volume 3. Academic Press, London.
Gannon, D.P., A.J. Read, J.E. Craddock and J.G. Mead. 1997. Stomach contents of Long-finned Pilot Whales (Globicephala
melas) stranded on the U.S. mid-Atlantic Coast. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 13: 405-418.
Gaskin, D.E. 1992a. Status of the Common Dolphin, Delphinus delphis, in Canada. Can.Field-Nat. 106: 55-63.
Gaskin, D.E. 1992b. Status of the Harbour Porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, in Canada. Can. Field-Nat. 106: 36-54.
Gaskin, D.E. 1992c. Status of the Atlantic White-sided Dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus, in Canada. Can. Field-Nat. 106: 6472.
Gilchrist, G.H and M.L. Mallory. 2005. Declines in abundance and distribution of the Ivory Gull (Pagophila eburnea) in
Arctic Canada. Biological Conservation 121:303-309.
Goff, G.P. and J. Lien. 1988. Atlantic Leatherback Turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, in cold water off Newfoundland and
Labrador, Can. Field-Nat. 102: 1-5.
Gowans, S. 2002. Bottlenose whales. Pages 128-129 In: W. F. Perrin, B. Würsig and J. G. M. Thewissen, eds. Encyclopedia
of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego.
Gowans, S. and H. Whitehead. 1995. Distribution and habitat partitioning by small Odontocetes in the Gully, a submarine
canyon on the Scotian Shelf. Can. J. Zool. 3: 1599-1608.
Greene, C.R., Jr., N.S. Altman and W.J. Richardson. 1999. Bowhead whale calls. p. 6-1 to 6-23 In: W.J. Richardson (ed.),
Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical's open-water seismic program in the Alaskan
Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Rep. TA2230-3. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc.,
Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Houston, TX, and U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage, AK, and
Silver Spring, MD. 390 p.
Griffin, R.B., 1999. Sperm whale distributions and community ecology associated with a warm-core ring off Georges Bank.
Mar. Mamm. Sci. 15, 33-51.
Guerra, A., A.F. González and F. Rocha. 2004. A review of the records of giant squid in the north-eastern Atlantic and
severe injuries in Architeuthis dux stranded after acoustic explorations. ICES CM 2004/CC:29.
Hai, D.J., J. Lien, D. Nelson and K. Curren. 1996. A contribution to the biology of the White-beaked dolphin,
Lagenorhynchus albirostris, in waters off Newfoundland. Can. Field-Nat. 110: 278-287.
LGL Limited
Page 81
Hammill, M.O. and G.B. Stenson. 2000. Estimated prey consumption by Harp Seals (Phoca groenlandica), Hooded Seals
(Cystophora cristata), and Grey Seals (Halichoerus grypus) in Atlantic Canada. J. Northwest Fish. Sci..26:1-23.
Hammill, M.O., M.S. Ryg and B. Mohn. 1995. Consumption of cod by the Northwest Atlantic Grey Seal in Eastern Canada.
pp. 337-349. In: A.S. Blix, L. Walloe and O. Ulltang (eds.), Whales, seals, fish and man. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on the Biology of Marine Mammals in the North East Atlantic. Developments in Marine
Biology 4.
Harris, R.E., G.W. Miller and W.J. Richardson. 2001. Seal responses to airgun sounds during summer seismic surveys in the
Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 17(4):795-812.
Seal in Eastern Canada. p. 337-349. In: A.S. Blix, L. Walloe and O. Ulltang (eds.), Whales, seals, fish and man. Proceedings
of the International Symposium on the Biology of Marine Mammals in the North East Atlantic. Developments in
Marine Biology 4.
Haney, J.C. and S.D. MacDonald. 1995. Ivory Gull Pagophila eburnean. In: The birds of North America, No. 175, ed. A.
Poole and F. Gill. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia and American Ornithologists’ Union,
Washington, DC. 21 p.
Hirst, A.G. and P.G. Rodhouse. 2000. Impacts of geophysical seismic surveying on fishing success. Reviews in Fish
Biology and Fisheries. 10:113-118.
Holst, M., M. Smultea, W.R. Koski and B. Haley. 2005a. Marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring during LamontDoherty Earth Observatory's seismic program in Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean off Central America, NovemberDecember 2004. LGL Rep. TA2822-30. Rep. by LGL Limited, King City, ON for Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory, Palisades, NY and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 125 p.
Holst, M., M. Smultea, W.R. Koski and B. Haley. 2005b. Marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring during LamontDoherty Earth Observatory's seismic program off the Northern Yucatan Peninsula in the Southern Gulf of Mexico,
January-February 2005. LGL Rep. TA2822-31. Rep. by LGL Limited, King City, ON for Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory, Palisades, NY and NMFS, Silver Spring, MD. 96 p.
Husky. 2000. White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study. Submitted by Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL.
Husky. 2001. White Rose Oilfield Comprehensive Study Supplemental Report. Responses by Husky Oil Operations
Limited to comments from Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, Dept. Fisheries and Oceans,
Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada, and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 265 p. + App.
Husky. 2002. Husky Jeanne d’Arc Basin Exploration Drilling Program project description and environmental assessment.
Prepared by LGL Limited, Oceans Ltd., Provincial Airlines Ltd. and SL Ross Ltd. for Husky Oil Operations Limited,
St. John’s, NL. 179 p.
Husky. 2003. White Rose Addendum: vertical seismic profiling project description and environmental assessment.
Prepared by LGL Limited for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL. 17 p.
Hutchings, J.A. 1996. Spatial and temporal variation in the density of northern cod and a review of hypotheses for the
stock’s collapse. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 943-962.
Hutchings, J.A. and R.A. Myers. 1994. Timing of cod reproduction: interannual variability and the influence of temperature.
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 108: 21-31.
James, M.C., S.A. Eckert, and R.A. Myers. 2005. Migratory and reproductive movements of male leatherback turtles
(Dermochelys coriacea). Mar. Biol. 147: 845-853.
Jacques Whitford Environment Limited (JWEL). 2003. Strategic Environmental Assessment Laurentian Subbasin. Report
by JWEL, St. John’s, NL for Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NOPB), St. John’s, NL.
Jeffs, A., N. Tolimieri, and J.C. Montgomery. 2003. Crabs on cue for the coast: the use of underwater sound for orientation
by pelagic crab stages. Mar. Fresh. Res. 54: 841-845.
Jochens, A.E. and D.C. Biggs (eds.). 2003. Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico. Annual report: Year 1. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS
Study MMS 2003-069. 139 p.
LGL Limited
Page 82
Katona, S.K. and J.A. Beard. 1990. Population size, migration and feeding aggregation of the Humpback Whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae) in the Western North Atlantic Ocean. Rep. Int.Whal. Comm. (Spec. Iss. 12): 295-305.
Katona, S.K., V. Rough, and D.T. Richardson. 1993. A Field Guide to Whales, Porpoises and Seals from Cape Cod to
Newfoundland. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, USA. 316 p.
Kawamura, A. (1980) A review of food of balaenopterid whales in Scientific Reports of the Whales Research Institute 32 :
Page(s) 155-197
Keats, D.W., G.R. South, and D.H. Steele. 1985. Reproduction and egg guarding by Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus:
Anarhichadidae) and ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus: Zoarcidae) in Newfoundland (Canada) waters. Can. J.
Zool. 63(11): 2565-2568.
Kenyon, T.N., F. Ladich, and H.Y. Yan. 1998. A comparative study of hearing ability in fishes: the auditory brainstem
response approach. J. Comp. Physiol. A 182: 307-318.
Kime, D.E. and H. Tveiten. 2002. Unusual motility characteristics of sperm of the spotted wolffish. J. Fish Biol. 61: 15491559.
Kostyuchenko, L.P. 1973. Effects of elasitc waves generated in marine seismic prospecting on fish eggs in the Black Sea.
Hydrobiol. J. 9:45-48.
Kulka, D.W., N.C. Antle, and J.M. Simms. 2003. Spatial analysis of 18 demersal species in relation to petroleum licence
areas on the Grand Bank (1980-2000). Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 2473. 202 p.
Kulka, D.W, M.R. Simpson, and R.G. Hooper. 2004. Changes in distribution and habitat associations of wolffish
(Anarhichidae) in the Grand Banks and Labrador Shelf. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2004/113.
LaBella, G., C. Froglia, A. Modica, S. Ratti, and G. Rivas. 1996. First assessment of effects of air-gun seismic shooting on
marine resources in the central Adriatic Sea. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc. International Conference on
Health, Safety and Environment, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A., 9-12 June 1996.
Lagardère, J.P. 1982. Effects of noise on growth and reproduction of Crangon crangon in rearing tanks. Mar. Biol. 71: 177186.
Lang, A.L., Moulton, V.D. and R.A. Buchanan. 2006. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of Husky Energy’s 3-D
seismic program in the Jeanne d’Arc Basin, 2005. LGL Rep. SA887. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for
Husky Energy, St. John’s, NL. XX p. + appendices.
Lawson, J.W. and G.B. Stenson. 1995. Historic variation in the diet of Harp Seals (Phoca groenlandica) in the Northwest
Atlantic. p. 261-269. In: A.S. Blix, L. Walloe and O. Ulltang (eds.), Whales, seals, fish and man. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on the Biology of Marine Mammals in the North East Atlantic. Developments in Marine
Biology 4.
Lawson, J.W., J.T. Anderson, E.L. Dalley and G.B. Stenson. 1998. Selective foraging by Harp Seals Phoca groenlandica in
nearshore and offshore waters of Newfoundland, 1993 and 1994. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 163: 1-10.
Lawson, J.W., R.A. Davis, W.J. Richardson and C.I. Malme. 2000. Assessment of Noise Issues Relevant to Key Cetacean
Species (Northern Bottlenose and Sperm Whales) in the Sable Gully Area of Interest. Report prepared by LGL Ltd.
Environmental Research Associates and Charles I. Malme Eng. and Sci. Services for Oceans Act Coordination Office,
Maritimes Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. LGL Report TA2446-2.
LeBuff, C.R., Jr. 1990. The Loggerhead Turtle in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Caretta Research, Inc.,Sanibel, FL. 216 p.
LGL. 2003. Husky Jeanne d’Arc Basin Exploration Drilling Program Project Description and Environmental Assessment
Addendum for Vertical Seismic Profile Activities. Report by LGL Limited for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St.
John’s. 6 p.
LGL. 2004a. Vertical seismic profiling environmental assessment Terra Nova Development. Rep. by LGL Limited, St.
John’s, NL for Petro-Canada, St. John’s, NL.
LGL. 2004b. Wellsite geohazard survey environmental assessment Terra Nova Development. Rep. by LGL Limited, St.
John’s, NL for Petro-Canada, St. John’s, NL.
LGL Limited
Page 83
LGL. 2005. Wellsite geohazard survey, 2005 environmental assessment Terra Nova Development. Rep. by LGL Limited,
St. John’s, NL for Petro-Canada, St. John’s, NL.
LGL. 2006a. Vertical Seismic Profiling Environmental Assessment Terra Nova Development. LGL Rep. SA890. Rep. by
LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for Petro-Canada, St. John’s, NL. 55 p.
LGL. 2006b. Husky delineation/exploration drilling program for Jeanne d’Arc Area environmental assessment update. Rep.
by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL for Husky Oil Operations Limited, St. John’s, NL.
Lien, J., G.B. Stenson and P.W. Jones. 1988. Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in waters off Newfoundland and Labrador, 19781986. Rit Fiskideildar. 11: 194-201.
Lien, J., G. B. Stenson, and P. W. Jones. 1990. A natural trap for blue whales Balaenoptera musculus: Sightings and ice
entrapments in Newfoundland (1979- 1988). Manu. Mar. Mamm. Sci..
Lien, J., D. Nelson and J.D. Hai. 1997. Status of the White-beaked Dolphin, Lagenorhynchus albirostris, in Canada. Report
for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.
Lilly, G.R., P.A. Shelton, J. Brattey, N.G. Cadigan, B.P. Healey, E.F. Murphy, and D.E. Stansbury. 2001. An assessment of
the cod stock in NAFO Divisions 2J and 3KL. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2001/044.
149 p.
Ljungblad, D.K., B. Würsig, S.L. Swartz and J.M. Keene. 1988. Observations on the behavioural responses of bowhead
whales (Balaena mysticetus) to active geophysical vessels in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Arctic 41(3):183-194.
Lock, A.R., R.G.B. Brown and S.H. Gerriets. 1994. Gazetteer of marine birds in Atlantic Canada. An atlas of seabird
vulnerability to oil pollution. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada,
Atlantic Region. 137 p.
Lohmann, K.J. and C.M.F. Lohmann. 1998. Migratory guidance mechanisms in marine turtles. J. Avian Biol. 29(4):585596.
Lohmann, K.J., B.E. Witherington, C.M.F. Lohmann and M. Salmon. 1997. Orientation, navigation, and natal beach
homing in sea turtles. p. 107-135 In: P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick (eds.), The biology of sea turtles. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL. 432 p.
Lohmann, K.J., S.D. Cain, S.A. Dodge and C.M.F. Lohmann. 2001. Regional magnetic fields as navigational markers for
sea turtles. Science 294(5541):364-366.
Løkkeborg, S. 1991. Effects of geophysical survey on catching success in longline fishing. ICES CM B:40. 9 p.
Lomond, T.M., D.C. Schneider and D.A. Methven. 1998. Transition from pelagic to benthic prey for age 0-1 Atlantic cod,
Gadus morhua. Fish. Bull. 96: 908-911.
Lydersen, C. and K.M. Kovacs. 1999. Behaviour and energetics of ice-breeding, North Atlantic phocid seals during the
lactation period. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.. 187: 265-281.
Madsen, P.T., B. Mohl, B.K. Nielsen and M. Wahlberg. 2002. Male sperm whale behaviour during exposures to distant
seismic survey pulses. Aquat. Mamm. 28(3):231-240.
Mager, A.M., Jr. 1985. Five-year status reviews of sea turtles listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. U.S. Dept.
Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg. FL. 90 p.
Magnuson, J., K. Bjorndal, W. DuPaul, G. Graham, D. Owens, C. Peterson, P. Pritchard, J. Richardson, G. Saul and C. West.
1990. Decline of Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Malme, C.I., B. Würsig, J.E. Bird and P. Tyack. 1988. Observations of feeding gray whale responses to controlled industrial
noise exposure. p. 55-73 In: W.M. Sackinger, M.O. Jeffries, J.L. Imm and S.D. Treacy (eds.), Port and ocean
engineering under arctic conditions, vol. II. Geophysical Inst., Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. 111 p.
Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack and J.E. Bird. 1984. Investigations of the potential effects of underwater
noise from petroleum industry activities on migrating gray whale behaviour/Phase II: January 1984 migration. BBN
Rep. 5586. Rep. from Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc., Cambridge, MA, for U.S. Minerals Manage. Serv., Anchorage,
AK. Var. pag. NTIS PB86-218377.
LGL Limited
Page 84
Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, P. Tyack, C.W. Clark and J.E. Bird. 1985. Investigation of the potential effects of underwater noise
from petroleum industry activities on feeding humpback whale behaviour. BBN Rep. 5851; OCS Study MMS 850019. Rep. from BBN Labs Inc., Cambridge, MA, for U.S. Minerals Manage. Serv., Anchorage, AK. Var. pag. NTIS
PB86-218385.
Mann, D.A., D.M. Higgs, W.N. Tavolga, M.J. Souza, and A.N. Popper. 2001. Ultrasound detection by clupeiform fishes. J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 109: 3048-3054.
Mansfield, A. W. 1985. Status of the blue whale, Balaenoptera musculus, in Canada. Can. Field-Nat. 99(3): 417-420.
Marquez, R., J. Diaz, M. Sanchez, P. Burchfield, A. Leo, M. Carrasco, J. Pena, C. Jimenez and R. Bravo. 1999. Results of the
Kemp’s ridley nesting beach conservation efforts in Mexico. Marine Turtle Newsletter 85: 2-4.
Mate, B. 1993. Experiments with an acoustic harassment system to limit seal movements. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 94(3, Pt.
2):1828.
Mate, B.R., K.M. Stafford and D.K. Ljungblad. 1994. A change in sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) distribution
correlated to seismic surveys in the Gulf of Mexico. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96(2):3268-3269.
McAlpine, D.F., P.T. Stevick and L.D. Murison. 1999. Increase in extralimital occurrences of icebreeding seals in the
northern Gulf of Maine region: more seals or fewer fish? Mar. Mamm. Sci. 15: 906-911.
McCall Howard, M.P. 1999. Sperm whales Physeter macrocephalus in the Gully, Nova Scotia: Population, distribution, and
response to seismic surveying. B.Sc. (Honors) Thesis. Dalhousie Univ., Halifax, N.S.
McCauley, R.D, J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, J. Murdoch, and K. McCabe.
2000a. Marine seismic surveys: Analysis and propagation of air-gun signals; and effects of air-gun exposure on
humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid. Prepared for Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration
Association, Centre for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin University, Perth, Australia, 198 p.
McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, M.-N. Jenner, M-N., C. Jenner, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, K. McCabe and J.
Murdoch. 2000b. Marine seismic surveys - a study of environmental implications. APPEA (Austral. Petrol. Product.
Explor. Assoc. ) Journal 40:692-708.
McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, and A.N. Popper. 2003. High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish ears. J. Acoust. Soc.
Am., 113, 1: 638-642.
McCauley, R.D., M.-N. Jenner, C. Jenner, K.A. McCabe and J. Murdoch. 1998. The response of humpback whales
(Megaptera novangliae) to offshore seismic survey noise: preliminary results of observations about a working seismic
vessel and experimental exposures. APPEA (Austral. Petrol. Product. Explor. Assoc.) Journal 38:692-707.
McDonald, M.A., J.A. Hildebrand and S.C. Webb. 1995. Blue and fin whales observed on a seafloor array in the Northeast
Pacific. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 98(2 Pt.1):712-721.
McLaren, P.L., R.E. Harris and I.R. Kirkham. 1983. Distribution of marine birds in the southern Labrador Sea, April 1981April 1982. Offshore Labrador Biological Studies Program (OLABS). LGL Limited Report for Petro-Canada
Exploration Inc., Calgary, Alberta. 252 p + App.
Miller, G.W., R.E. Elliott, W.R. Koski, V.D. Moulton and W.J. Richardson. 1999. Whales. p. 5-1 to 5-109 In: W.J.
Richardson (ed.), Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical's open-water seismic program
in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Rep. TA2230-3. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge
Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Houston, TX, and U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage,
AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 390 p.
Mitchell, E. and D.G. Chapman. 1977. Preliminary assessment of stocks of northwest Atlantic Sei Whales (Balaenoptera
borealis). Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. (Spec. Iss. 1): 117-120.
MMS. 2003. Implementation of seismic survey mitigation measures and protected species observer program. US Dept.
Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. NTL 2003-G08 Effective June 5, 2003. 10 p.
Mobil 1985. Hibernia Development Project, Environmental Impact Statement. Volume IIIa: Biophysical Assessment. Mobil
Oil Canada, Ltd. (Operator), Gulf Canada Resources Inc., Petro- Canada Inc., Chevron Canada Resources Ltd., and
Columbia Gas Development of Canada Ltd. 258 p.
LGL Limited
Page 85
Morgan, P.J. 1989. Occurrence of Leatherback Turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the British Islands in 1988 with reference
to a record specimen. p. 119-120. In: S.A. Eckert, K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson (Compilers), Proceedings of the
Ninth Annual Conference on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-232. U.S.
Dept. Commerce, Miami FL. 305 p.
Morgan, M.J., E.M. DeBlois, and G.A. Rose. 1997. An observation on the reaction of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in a
spawning shoal to bottom trawling. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54(Suppl.): 217-223.
Moulton, V.D. and J.W. Lawson. 2002. Seals, 2001. p. 3-1 to 3-48 In: W.J. Richardson (ed.), Marine mammal and
acoustical monitoring of WesternGeco’s open water seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 2001. Rep. from
LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for WesternGeco, Houston, TX, and
Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. LGL Rep. TA2564-4.
Moulton, V.D. and W.J. Richardson. 2000. A review of sea turtles and seismic noise. LGL Rep. TA2525-1. Report from
LGL Ltd., King City, Ont. for British Petroleum, Aberdeen, Scotland. 12 p.
Moulton, V.D. and G.W. Miller 2004. Marine mammal monitoring of Marathon Canada Petroleum’s 3-D seismic program
on the Scotian Slope, 2003. LGL Rep. SA759-1. Rep. from LGL Ltd., St. John’s, NL, for Marathon Canada
Petroleum, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 94 p. + appendices.
Moulton, V.D., B.D. Mactavish and R.A. Buchanan. 2006a. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of ConocoPhillips’ 3D seismic program in the Laurentian Sub-basin, 2005. LGL Rep. SA849. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL, for
ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corporation, Calgary, AB. 97 p + appendices..
Moulton, V.D., B.D. Mactavish, R.E. Harris and R.A. Buchanan. 2006b. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of
Chevron Canada Limited’s 3-D seismic program on the Orphan Basin, 2005. LGL Rep. SA843. Rep. by LGL
Limited, St. John’s, NL, for Chevron Canada Limited, Calgary, AB, ExxonMobil Canada Ltd., St. John’s, NL, and
Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Ltd., Calgary, AB. 109 p. + appendices.
Moulton, V.D., B.D. Mactavish and R.A. Buchanan. 2005. Marine mammal and seabird monitoring of Chevron Canada
Resources’ 3-D seismic program on the Orphan Basin, 2004. LGL Rep. SA817. Rep. by LGL Limited, St. John’s,
NL, for Chevron Canada Resources, Calgary, AB, ExxonMobil Canada Ltd., St. John’s, NL, and Imperial Oil
Resources Ventures Ltd., Calgary, AB. 90 p. + appendices.
Myers, R.A., G. Mertz, and C.A. Bishop. 1993. Cod spawning in relation to physical and biological cycles of the northern
North-west Atlantic. Fish. Oceanogr. 2: 154-165.
NEB, CNOPB and CNSOPB. 2002. Offshore waste treatment guidelines. 11 p. + appendices.
Nelson, D. and J. Lien. 1996. The status of the Long-finned Pilot Whale, Globicephala melas, in Canada. Can. Field-Nat..
110: 511-524.
Nestler, J.M., G.R. Ploskey, J. Pickens, J. Menezes, and C. Schilt. 1992. Responses of blueback herring to high-frequency
sound and implications for reducing entrainment at hydropower dams. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 12: 667-683.
NMFS. 2000. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; marine seismic-reflection data collection in
southern California/Notice of receipt of application. Fed. Regist. 65(60, 28 Mar.):16374-16379.
Oceans. 2005. Physical environmental study for the northeastern Grand Banks. Rep. by Oceans Limited, St. John’s, NL, for
LGL Limited, St. John’s, NL.
Ollerhead, L.M.N., M.J. Morgan, D.A. Scruton, and B. Marrie. 2004. Mapping spawning times and locations for 10
commercially important fish species found on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
2522: iv + 45 p.
Orr, C.D. and J.L. Parsons. 1982. Ivory Gulls Pagophila eburnea and ice-edges in Davis Strait and the Labrador Sea. Can.
Field-Nat. 96:323-328.
Overholtz, W.J. and G.T. Waring. 1991. Diet composition of Pilot Whales Globicephala spp. and Common Dolphins
Delphinus delphis in the mid-Atlantic Bight during spring 1989. U.S. Fish. Bull. 89: 723-728.
Palka, D., A. Read and C. Potter. 1997. Summary of knowledge of White-sided Dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus) from US
and Canadian Atlantic Waters. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm.ission 47: 729-734.
LGL Limited
Page 86
Payne, P.M., L.A. Selzer and A.R. Knowlton. 1984. Distribution and density of cetaceans, marine turtles and seabirds in the
shelf waters of the Northeastern United States, June 1980-December 1983, based on shipboard observations. Final
Rep., Contr. NA-81-FA-C-00023. Rep. From Manomet Bird Observ., Manomet, MA, for Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv.,
Northeast Fish. Cent., Woods Hole, MA. 264 p.
Payne, P.M., D.N. Wiley, S.B. Young, S. Pittman, P.J. Clapham and J.W. Jossi. 1990. Recent fluctuations in the abundance
of baleen whales in the Southern Gulf of Maine in relation to changes in selected prey. U.S. Fish. Bull. 88: 687-696.
Pearson, W.H., J.R. Skalski and C.I. Malme. 1992. Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on behavior of
captive rockfish (Sebastes spp). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 1343-1356.
Pearson, W., Skalski, J., Sulkin, S. and C. Malme. 1994. Effects of seismic energy releases on the survival and development
of zoeal larvae of Dungeness crab (Cancer magister). Mar. Environ. Res., 38: 93-113.
Petro-Canada. 1996a. Development Application Terra Nova Development Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by
Petro-Canada on behalf of Terra Nova Proponents: Petro-Canada, Mobil Oil Canada Properties, Husky Oil
Operations Limited, Murphy Oil Company Ltd., and Mosbacher Operating Limited.
Petro-Canada. 1996b. Development Application Terra Nova Development Supplement A to the Application. Prepared by
Operations Limited, Murphy Oil Company Ltd., and Mosbacher Operating Limited. 82 p.
Petro-Canada. 1997. Development Application Terra Nova Development Supplement B to the Application. Prepared by
Operations Limited, Murphy Oil Company Ltd., and Mosbacher Operating Limited. 84 p. + App.
Petro-Canada. 1998. Terra Nova baseline environmental characterization data report. Prepared by Petro-Canada on behalf of
Terra Nova Proponents: Petro-Canada, Mobil Oil Canada Properties, Husky Oil Operations Limited, Murphy Oil
Company Ltd., and Mosbacher Operating Limited.
Piatt, J.F., D.A. Methven, A.E. Burger, R.L. McLagan, V. Mercer and E. Creelman. 1989. Baleen whales and their prey in a
coastal environment. Can. J. Zool. 67: 1523-1530.
Plotkin, P.T. (ed.). 1995. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service status reviews for sea turtles
listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 139 p.
Popper, A.N., M. Salmon, and K.W. Horch. 2001. Acoustic detection and communication by decapod crustaceans. J.
Comp. Physiol. A 187: 83-89.
Reeves, R.R., E. Mitchell and H. Whitehead. 1993. Status of the Northern Bottlenose Whale, Hyperoodon ampullatus. Can.
Field-Nat. 107: 491-509.
Reeves, R. and H. Whitehead. 1997. Status of the Sperm Whale, Physeter macrocephalus, in Canada. Can. Field-Nat. 111:
293-307.
Reeves, R.R., P.J. Clapham, R.L Brownell, Jr. and G.K. Silber 1998. Recovery plan for the blue whale (Balaenoptera
musculus). Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Reeves, R., C. Smeenk, C.C. Kinze, R.L. Brownell Jr. and J. Lien. 1999. White-beaked Dolphin Lagenorhynchus albirostris
Gray, 1846. p. 1-30. In: S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals Volume 6, the Second
Book of Dolphins and Porpoises. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 486 p.
Reeves, R.R., Smith, B.D., Crespo, E.A. and di Sciara, G.N. (compilers) 2003. Dolphins, Whales and Porpoises: 2002-2010
Conservation Action Plan for the World's Cetaceans. IUCN/SSC Cetacean Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Rice, D.W. 1989. Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Linnaeus, 1758. p. 177-233 In S. H. Ridgway, and R. Harrison,
eds. Handbook of Marine Mammals, Volume 4. Academic Press, London, U.K. 442 p.
Richardson, W.J. and C.I. Malme. 1993. Man-made noise and behavioural responses. p. 631-700 In: J.J. Burns, J.J.
Montague and C.J. Cowles (eds.), The bowhead whale. Spec. Publ. 2, Society for Marine Mammalogy, Lawrence,
Kansas. 787 p.
LGL Limited
Page 87
Richardson, W.J., B. Würsig and C.R. Greene. 1986. Reactions of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, to seismic
exploration in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 79(4):1117-1128.
Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine mammals and noise. Academic Press,
San Diego. 576 p.
Richardson, W.J., G.W. Miller and C.R. Greene Jr. 1999. Displacement of migrating bowhead whales by sounds from
seismic surveys in shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106(4, Pt. 2):2281.
Ritter, J.A. 1989. Marine migration and natural mortality of North American salmon (Salmo salar) L.). Canadian
Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, No. 2041.
Robertson, G.J. and R.D. Elliot. 2002. Changes in seabird populations breeding on Small Island, Wadham Islands,
Newfoundland. Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report Series No.381. Atlantic Region.
Robertson, G.J., D. Fifield, M. Massaro and J.W. Chardine. 2001. Changes in nesting-habitat use of large gulls breeding in
Witless Bay, Newfoundland. Can. J. Zool. 79:2159-2167.
Robertson, G.J., S.I. Wilhelm and P.A. Taylor. 2004. Population size and trends of seabirds breeding on Gull and Great
Islands, Witless Bay Islands Ecological Reserve, Newfoundland, up to 2003. Canadian Wildlife Service Technical
Report Series No. 418. Atlantic Region.
Rodway, M.S., H.M. Regehr and J.W. Chardine. 2003. Status of the largest breeding concentration of Atlantic Puffins.
Fratercula arctica, in North America. Can. Field Nat. 117: 70-75.
Rose, G.A. 1993. Cod spawning on a migration highway in the northwest Atlantic. Nature 366: 458-461.
Rostal, D.C. 1991. The reproductive behavior and physiology of the Kemp.s ridley Sea Turtle, Lepidochelys kempi (Garman,
1880). Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Saetre, R. and E. Ona. 1996. Seismike undersøkelser og på fiskeegg og -larver en vurdering av mulige effecter pa bestandsniva.
[Seismic investigations and damages on fish eggs and larvae; an evaluation of possible effects on stock level] Fisken
og Havet 1996:1-17, 1-8. (in Norwegian, with an English summary - full translation not published).
SAUP 2006 [Sea Around Us Project website; http://saup.fisheries.ubc.ca/]
Schwarz, A.L. and G.L. Greer. 1984. Responses of Pacific herring, Clupea harengus pallasi to some underwater sounds.
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 41:1183-1192.
Schilling, M.R., I. Seipt, M.T. Weinrich, S.E. Frohock, A.E. Kuhlberg and P.J. Clapham. 1992. Behavior of individuallyidentified Sei Whales Balaenoptera borealis during an episodic influx into the southern Gulf of Maine in 1986. U.S.
Fish. Bull. 90: 749-755.
Scott, W.B. and M.G. Scott. 1988. Atlantic Fishes of Canada. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 219: 731 p.
Sergeant, D.E. 1962. The biology of the Pilot or Pothead Whale Globicephala melaena (Traill) in Newfoundland waters.
Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 132: 1-84.
Sears, R. 2002. The Blue Whale, Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, edited by William F. Perrin, Bernd Wursig, J. G. M.
Thewissen. San Diego, CA, Academic Press. 1414 p.
Sears, R. and J. Calambokidis. 2002, Status of the Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) in Canada, Report to the committee
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa. 2002.
Selzer, L.A. and P.M. Payne. 1988. The distribution of White-sided (Lagenorhynchus acutus) and Common Dolphins
(Delphinus delphis) vs. environmental features of the continental shelf of the northeastern United States. Mar. Mamm.
Sci. 4: 141-153.
Sergeant, D.E. 1991. Harp Seals, man and ice. Can. Spec. Pub. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 114: 153 p.
Shaver, D.J. 1991. Feeding ecology of wild and headstarted Kemp.s ridley Sea Turtles in south Texas waters. J.Herpetol. 25:
327-334.
Shin, H.-O., D.-J. Lee, and H.-I. Shin. 2003. Behavior of Israeli carp Cyprinus carpio traced by long baseline telemetry
techniques during dynamite explosion work. Fish. Sci. 69: 27-36.
LGL Limited
Page 88
Sigurjonsson, J. and T. Gunnlaugsson. 1990. Recent trends in abundance of blue (Balaenoptera musculus) and humpback
whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) off west and southwest Iceland, with a note on occurrence of other cetacean
species. Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 40: 537-551.
Simard, Y., and D. Lavoie. 1999. The rich krill aggregation of the Saguenay - St. Lawrence Marine Park: Hydroacoustic and
geostatistical biomass estimates, structure, variability, and significance for whales. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.. 56:11821197.
Simpson, M.R. and D.W. Kulka. 2002. Status of three wolffish species (Anarhichas lupus, A. minor, and A. denticulatus) in
Newfoundland waters (NAFO Divisions 2GHJ3KLNOP). Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research
Document 2002/078.
Simpson, M.R. and D.W. Kulka. 2003. Formulation of an incidental harm permit strategy for wolffish species
(Anarhichadidae). Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2003/047.
Skalski, J.R., W.H. Pearson and C.I. Malme. 1992. Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on catch-per-uniteffort in a hook-and-line fishery for rockfish (Sebastes spp). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49(7):1357-1365.
Slotte, A., K. Hansen, J. Dalen, and E. Ona. 2004. Acoustic mapping of pelagic fish distribution and abundance in relation
to a seismic shooting area off the Norwegian west coast. Fish. Res. 67: 143-150.
Smith, M.E., A.S. Kane, and A.N. Popper. 2004. Noise-induced stress response and hearing loss in goldfish (Carassius
auratus). J. Exp. Biol. 207: 427-435.
Smith, T.D., J. Allen, P.J. Clapham, P.S. Hammond, S. Katona, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D. Mattila, P.J. Palsboll, J. Sigurjonsson,
P.T. Stevick and N. Oien. 1999. An ocean-basin-wide mark-recapture study of the North Atlantic Humpback Whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae). Mar. Mamm. Sci. 15: 1-32.
Stenson, G.B. 1994. The status of pinnipeds in the Newfoundland region. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization,
Scientific Council Studies 21: 115-119.
Stenson, G.B. and D.J. Kavanagh. 1994. Distribution of Harp and Hooded Seals in offshore waters of Newfoundland.
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, Scientific Council Studies 21:121-142.
Stenson, G.B., J. Lien, J. Lawson and R. Seton. 2003. Ice entrapments of blue whales in southwest Newfoundland: 18681992. p. 15-16 in V. Lesage and M.O. Hammill (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on the development of research
priorities for the northwest Atlantic blue whale population, 20-21 November 2002. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec.
Proceed. Ser. 2003/031.
Stenson, G.B. and B. Sjare. 1997. Seasonal distribution of Harp Seals, Phoca groenlandica, in the Northwest Atlantic. ICES.
C.M. 1997/10 p.
Stobo, W.T. and C.T. Zwanenburg. 1990. Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus) pup production on Sable Island and estimates of
recent production in the Northwest Atlantic. p. 171-184. In: W.D. Bowen (ed.), Population biology of sealworm
(Pseudoterranova decipiens) in relation to its intermediate and seal hosts. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 222 p.
Stone, C.J. 2003. The effects of seismic activity on marine mammals in UK waters, 1998-2000. Joint Nature Conservation
Committee. JNCC Report No. 323. 78 p.
Sverdrup, A., E. Kjellsby, P.G. Krüger, R. Fløysand, F.R. Knudsen, P.S. Enger, G. Serck-Hanssen, and K.B. Helle. 1994.
Effects of experimental seismic shock on vasoactivity of arteries, integrity of the vascular endothelium and on primary
stress hormones of the Atlantic salmon. J. Fish Biol. 45: 973-995.
Templeman, W. 1966. Marine resources of Newfoundland. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. 154: 170 p.
Templeman, W. 1986a. Spotted forms of the northern wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus) in the Northwest Atlantic. J.
Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 7: 77-80.
Templeman, W. 1986b. Contribution to the biology of the spotted wolffish (Anarhichas minor) in the Northwest Atlantic. J.
Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 7: 47-55.
Templeman, W.T. 1979. Migrations and intermingling of stocks of Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua, of the Newfoundland and
adjacent areas from tagging in 1962-66. ICNAF (Int. Comm. Northwest Atl. Fish.) Res. Bull. 14: 5-50.
LGL Limited
Page 89
Thomas, V.G. and S.D. MacDonald. 1987. The breeding distribution and current population status of the Ivory Gull in
Canada. Arctic 40:211-218.
Thompson, D., M. Sjöberg, E.B. Bryant, P. Lovell and A. Bjørge. 1998. Behavioural and physiological responses of harbour
(Phoca vitulina) and grey (Halichoerus grypus) seals to seismic surveys. p. 134 In: World Marine Mammal Science
Conf. Abstract volume, Monaco. 160 p.
Valsecchi, E., P. Palsboll, P. Hale, D. Glockner-Ferrari, M. Ferrari, P. Clapham, F. Larsen, D. Mattila, R. Sears, J.
Sigurjonsson, M. Brown, P. Corkeron and B. Amos. 1997. Microsatellite genetic distances between oceanic
populations of the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Molec. Biol. Evol. 14: 355-362.
Vázquez, A. 2002. Results from bottom trawl survey on Flemish Cap of July 2001. NAFO SCR Doc. 01/12. 8 p.
Wallace, S.D. and J.W. Lawson. 1997. A review of stomach contents of Harp Seals (Phoca groenlandica) from the
Northwest Atlantic: an update. International Marine Mammal Association 97-01.
Wang, J.Y., D.E. Gaskin and B.N. White. 1996. Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Harbour Porpoise, Phocoena phocoena,
subpopulations in North American waters. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 1632-1645.
Wardle, C.S., T.J. Carter, G.G. Urquhart, A.D.F. Johnstone, A.M. Ziolkowski, G. Hampson and D. Mackie. 2001. Effects of
seismic air guns on marine fish. Cont. Shelf Res. 21(8-10): 1005-1027.
Waring, G.T., P. Gerrior, P.M. Payne, B.L. Parry and J.R. Nicolas. 1990. Incidental take of marine mammals in foreign
fishery activities off the northeast United States, 1977-1988. U.S. Fish.Bull. 88: 347-360.
Waring, G., R. Pace, J. Quintal, C. Fairfield and K. Maze-Foley. 2004. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal
Stock Assessments – 2003. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE-182. 269 pp.
Westgate, A.J. and K.A. Tolley. 1999. Geographical differences in organochlorine contaminants in Harbour Porpoises
Phocoena phocoena from the western North Atlantic. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 177: 255-268.
Williams, U. and J. Chardine. n.d. The Leach’s Storm-Petrel: General information and handling instructions.
Wimmer, T., and Whitehead, H. 2004. Movements and distribution of northern bottlenose whales, Hyperoodon ampullatus,
on the Scotian Slope and in adjacent waters. Can. J. Zool. 82: 1782–1794.
Witzell, W.N. 1999. Distribution and relative abundance of sea turtles caught incidentally by the U.S. pelagic longline fleet
in the western North Atlantic Ocean, 1992-1995. U.S. Fisheries Bulletin 97: 200-211.
Whitehead, H. 1982. Populations of Humpback Whales in the Northwest Atlantic. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 32: 345-353.
Whitehead, H. 2003. Sperm whales: social evolution in the ocean. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
Whitehead, H., and C. Glass. 1985. The Significance of the Southeast Shoal of the Grand Bank to Humpback Whales and
Other Cetacean Species. Can. J. Zool. 63:2617-2685.
Whitehead, H. and J.E. Carscadden. 1985. Predicting inshore whale abundance - whales and capelin off the Newfoundland
coast. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42: 976-981.
Wiese, F. K. and W.A. Montevecchi. 1999. Marine bird and mammal surveys on the Newfoundland Grand Bank from
offshore supply vessels. Contract Report Prepared for Husky Oil. 23 p. + App.
Winn, H.E., and N.E. Reichley. 1985. Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae (Borowski, 1781). 241-272 in S.H.
Ridgway and R. Harrison, eds. Handbook of marine mammals, Volume 3 The sirenians and baleen whales. Academic
Press.
Witzell, W.N. 1999. Distribution and relative abundance of sea turtles caught incidentally by the U.S. pelagic longline fleet
in the western North Atlantic Ocean, 1992-1995. U.S. Fish. Bull. 97: 200-211.
Yochem, P.K. and Leatherwood, S. (1985). Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus (Linnaeus 1758). In: Handbook of Marine
Mammals, Volume 3, The Sirenians and Baleen Whales'. (Eds S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison.) pp. 193-240.
(Academic Press: London.)
Zelick, R., D.A. Mann, and A.N. Popper. 1999. Acoustic communication in fishes and frogs. In: (eds.) R.R. Fay and A.N.
Popper. Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research. Springer-Verlag
New York Inc. pp. 363-411.
LGL Limited
Page 90
Personal Communication
Canning, S.
Chidley, G.
Dufault, S.
Dugal, R.
Evans, J.
Kaderali, A.
Lawson, J.
Lilly, G.
Simms, J.
Thomas, P.
Tillman, J.
Thorne, H.
Canning and Pitt, St. John’s, NL
Commercial fisherman
LGL Ltd., Halifax, NS
Petro-Canada, St. John’s, NL
Petro-Canada, St. John’s, NL
Husky Oil Operations, St. John’s, NL
DFO, St. John’s, NL
CWS, St. John’s, NL
Commercial fisherman
LGL Limited
Page 91
Appendix A: Physical Environment Report
LGL Limited
Page 92

Environmental Assessment of Petro

Transcription

Similar documents

Dipmap!of!sea!floor,!offshore!Italy! Dipmap!of!a!seismic!surface!

: Seismic Hazard Distribution Map Republic of Moldova

leviathan ovw

Marina Terra 303

Push for 100 jobs in 100 days

Tidelands Geophysical Enhances Onshore Seismic

19 Marina Terra - Seaside Realty

5 Marina Terra - Seaside Realty

Corporal Frank Gordon (M.M.) Best